## Facts

- Joseph M. Whiting, a former police officer, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the Eastern District of New York challenging his termination and seeking $9,999,000 in damages.
- After multiple attorney changes, Whiting retained Garrett R. Lacara in December 1997.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for governmental defendants, leaving a First Amendment claim and two equal-protection claims for trial set for August 18, 1998.
- Twelve days before trial, Lacara moved to withdraw, asserting a breakdown in the attorney–client relationship, including Whiting’s refusal to follow legal advice, demands for publicity, inadequate communication, insistence on pursuing dismissed or collateral matters, and an attempt to compel service of a Rule 68 offer drafted without counsel’s consent.
- Lacara described an incident in which Whiting entered counsel’s office, searched through papers, refused to leave, and counsel called 911.
- The district court (Spatt, J.) denied withdrawal; Lacara appealed and sought emergency relief. After renewed motion and a second denial, Lacara again appealed; the appeals were consolidated.
- During appellate proceedings, Whiting stated he wanted to control litigation strategy, demanded pursuit of legally untenable or dismissed theories, opposed withdrawal absent a fee refund, and suggested malpractice or fee litigation if his demands were not met.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Lacara’s motions to withdraw as counsel.
2. Whether Whiting’s conduct and stated intentions created an irreconcilable conflict and ethical dilemma making compelled continued representation improper.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the orders denying withdrawal.
- The court held that, although the pre-appeal record could have justified denial given the imminent trial, Whiting’s later statements demonstrated an irreconcilable conflict.
- The court concluded Whiting’s position placed Lacara in an untenable ethical posture, requiring permission to withdraw.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion to manage attorney withdrawal, particularly close to trial, but that discretion is exceeded when continued representation would force counsel into serious ethical jeopardy.
- A client’s insistence that counsel pursue frivolous, barred, or dismissed claims, coupled with coercive threats of malpractice or fee litigation to dictate strategy, can create an irreconcilable conflict warranting withdrawal.
- Clients control objectives (e.g., settlement decisions), while lawyers retain professional responsibility for lawful, non-frivolous means; courts should not compel representation that subordinates counsel’s independent professional judgment or duties of candor.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Whiting’s conduct and expressed intent to control strategy through demands and collateral threats created an irreconcilable conflict, so the district court abused its discretion by compelling Lacara to remain as counsel despite the proximity of trial.


Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1999)