## Facts

- A marriage dissolution action began in June 1988 and proceeded for roughly thirty-two months before judgment in February 1991.
- The wife had three successive attorneys withdraw before trial; the third sought withdrawal on ethical grounds.
- The third attorney asserted that continued representation would involve assisting fraudulent or improper conduct and submitted an affidavit seeking in camera review.
- After in camera review, the judge granted withdrawal based on the attorney’s reasonable belief that the wife intended to submit a false financial affidavit.
- The wife then proceeded pro se at trial, did not testify, and presented little evidence disputing the husband’s evidence of assets and net worth.
- After judgment, the wife moved for a mistrial based on prejudice from counsel’s withdrawal; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Appellate Court ordered a remand for an evidentiary hearing on the withdrawal motion; the Supreme Court reviewed that ruling on certification.

## Issues

1. Whether due process required an evidentiary hearing before permitting counsel to withdraw based on a reasonable belief that the client intended fraud.
2. Whether the trial court improperly drew an adverse inference from the wife’s failure to testify at the dissolution trial.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after permitting counsel to withdraw.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and reinstated the dissolution judgment.
- Due process did not require an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s ethical-withdrawal request; the affidavit and in camera review were sufficient under the circumstances.
- The trial court did not draw an improper adverse inference from the wife’s failure to testify; it permissibly credited uncontradicted evidence and noted the lack of conflicting proof.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial, given the extended litigation, findings of delay-oriented conduct, and prejudice to the husband.

## Legal Principles

- A court may permit withdrawal when counsel reasonably believes the client persists in conduct involving the lawyer’s services that is criminal or fraudulent, consistent with professional-conduct rules.
- Due process does not automatically require a full adversarial evidentiary hearing on an attorney’s motion to withdraw on ethical grounds; procedures such as sworn submissions and in camera review can satisfy constitutional requirements when the client’s interest is limited and countervailing institutional concerns are substantial.
- In a civil case, a fact-finder may accept uncontroverted testimony and documentary proof; noting the absence of contradictory evidence is not, by itself, an improper penalty for a party’s failure to testify.
- A mistrial ruling is committed to the trial court’s discretion; where the record supports findings of dilatory conduct and prejudice to the opposing party, denial of mistrial will be upheld.

## Conclusion

The court upheld counsel’s ethical withdrawal without a mandatory evidentiary hearing, found no improper inference from the wife’s silence where she offered no competing proof, and affirmed the trial court’s discretionary denial of a mistrial in light of delay-related conduct and prejudice in a prolonged dissolution proceeding.


Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166, 627 A.2d 414 (Conn. 1993)