[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

Chapter 13
Ending the Client-Lawyer Relationship
We have seen that fiduciary duties generally do not attach until a lawyer agrees to represent
a client. The same is true when a lawyer completes a client matter: most, but not all,
fiduciary duties, end. In Chapters 6, 7, and 8, we addressed the continuing duties of
confidentiality to former clients. In Chapters 9, 10, and 11, we identified specific rules that
govern conflicts of interest concerning former clients. In Chapter 12, we saw that the
lawyer’s fee agreement usually is invalidated when a client fires a lawyer. In this chapter, we
review the various ways that a client representation can end, including termination by the
client and withdrawal from the matter by the lawyer. We also focus here on situations
where the client’s activity could force the lawyer to resign, and whether the lawyer, faced
with such a circumstance, can seek any remedy.
A. Voluntary Withdrawal
1. Unpaid Fees Model Rules 1.16 RLGL §§ 32, 33
Gilles v. Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota
783 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. 2001)
PRESSLER, P.J.A.D.
Plaintiff Denise Gilles appeals from a summary judgment dismissing her legal
malpractice complaint against defendants, the law firm of Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota, and
its partner, Arthur L. Raynes, who had represented her. The gravamen of her complaint is
that Raynes, voluntarily and without good cause attributable to her, terminated the
representation without adequately protecting her against the running of the statute of
limitations, thus causing her to lose her medical malpractice cause of action. . . .
Persuaded by advice she had received from a physician family member that the
perforation resulting in the emergency surgery was caused by malpractice, she consulted
Raynes in early April 1996. . . .
. . . At Raynes’s instruction, plaintiff obtained and delivered to him the relevant medical
records. Raynes explained to her that before suit could be commenced, he would need a
report from a medical expert opining that she had been the victim of malpractice.
Accordingly, he sought an opinion from a forensic gastroenterologist, Dr. Andrew Lo of
Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, who reported to him that he believed there had
not been malpractice. By letter dated March 24, 1997, Raynes advised plaintiff of Dr. Lo’s
opinion but added that:
403