## Facts

- Helen M. Sterling, individually and as administratrix of her late husband’s estate, retained Ellis J. Sobol and Zuckerman & Sobol, P.C. to pursue a civil action against a law firm in Arapahoe County District Court.
- The representation appeared to be governed by a contingent-fee agreement.
- The case was set for jury trial on September 29, 1980.
- During litigation, serious disputes arose between Sterling and her attorneys; the attorneys alleged Sterling was uncooperative, critical of their handling of the case, withheld material information, and repeatedly contacted defense counsel, making effective representation impossible.
- Sterling denied responsibility for the problems but did not dispute that the conflicts were serious; she asserted she was entitled to continued representation because of the contingent-fee agreement and her inability to obtain substitute counsel.
- About ten months before trial, the attorneys moved to withdraw; the district court initially granted withdrawal, allowed time to find new counsel, and later ordered the attorneys to assist Sterling in obtaining replacement counsel.
- Sterling did not secure new counsel, and as trial approached the district court reversed course and denied withdrawal based on concern that Sterling would be prejudiced if left without counsel.
- The attorneys sought extraordinary relief, asking the Colorado Supreme Court to prohibit enforcement of the denial of withdrawal and to stay the trial proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying counsel’s motion to withdraw and compelling continued representation despite a serious breakdown and mutual hostility in the attorney-client relationship.
2. Whether a client’s inability to obtain substitute counsel and the proximity of trial can justify forcing unwilling counsel to continue representation when effective representation has become impossible.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court made the rule to show cause absolute and granted relief to the attorneys.
- The Court held the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw under the circumstances.
- The Court directed that the attorneys be permitted to withdraw from representing Sterling in the underlying civil action.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for leave to withdraw, but that discretion is limited by counsel’s professional responsibilities and the practical requirements of effective representation.
- Withdrawal may be required or permitted when the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated to the point that effective representation is impossible or continued representation would be unreasonably difficult.
- A contingent-fee arrangement and a client’s preference to keep existing counsel do not entitle the client to compel continued representation where irreconcilable conflict prevents effective advocacy.
- A client’s inability to secure substitute counsel, standing alone, does not justify forcing continued representation in the face of severe, acknowledged conflict.
- When a withdrawal request is made well before trial and the conflict worsens over time, denying withdrawal solely to avoid short-term prejudice to the client may constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court required the district court to allow counsel to withdraw because the undisputed severity of the attorney-client conflict made effective representation unattainable, and the client’s difficulty finding new counsel and the approaching trial date did not justify compelled representation.


Sobol v. District Court, 619 P.2d 765 (Colo. 1980)