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

Kriegsman v. Kriegsman, 375 A.2d 1253 (N.J. App. 1977). Although we were there
dealing with an attorney’s motion for leave to withdraw from a matter already in litigation,
what we said there is equally apt to an attorney’s pre-litigation obligations. Thus, in
affirming the denial of that motion, we started from the premise that “when a firm accepts
a retainer to conduct a legal proceeding, it impliedly agrees to prosecute the matter to a
conclusion. The firm is not at liberty to abandon the case without justifiable or reasonable
cause, or the consent of its client.” . . . [O]ur rationale in Kriegsman remains as relevant
today as it was then in defining the attorney’s duty. As we explained:
We are not unmindful of the fact that the Rose firm has performed substantial legal services for plaintiff and
clearly is entitled to reasonable compensation therefor. Nevertheless, an attorney has certain obligations and duties
to a client once representation is undertaken. These obligations do not evaporate because the case becomes more
complicated or the work more arduous or the retainer not as profitable as first contemplated or imagined . . . .
Whether Raynes’s withdrawal afforded plaintiff a reasonable opportunity in the
circumstances to protect her cause of action was, in our view, at least a question of fact
precluding summary judgment dismissing the complaint. . . .
Problem
13-1. Martyn & Fox has been handling a litigation matter for a client for several years.
Last September, the client stopped paying Martyn & Fox’s bills, giving one excuse after
another. Threats to drop the client have only elicited pleas of cash flow problems and other
“check is in the mail” statements. May Martyn & Fox resign?
2. Client Misconduct Model Rules 1.2(d), 1.16, 3.3, 4.1 RLGL § 32
In the Matter of Steven T. Potts
158 P.3d 418 (Mont. 2007)
. . . This disciplinary action arises from Potts’s representation in a will contest involving
the estate of Ernestine Stukey (Ernestine). Ernestine died March 8, 2001. Ernestine was
survived by her daughter, Evon Leistiko (Evon), her six grandchildren, including Tyson
Leistiko (Tyson), and her niece, Charlene Howard (Charlene).
Ernestine executed a will on January 14, 1998, disinheriting Evon and bequeathing
most of her estate to Charlene. The will designated Charlene and Ernestine’s friend, Verna
Kessner (Verna), as co-personal representatives of her estate.
Ernestine’s mental health deteriorated over the next two years, and she was
involuntarily committed to the Montana State Hospital at Warm Springs. Evon petitioned
the Third Judicial District [Court] to become Ernestine’s conservator. . . .
Evon filed an initial inventory (initial inventory) with the district court in the
conservatorship proceedings, reporting Ernestine’s net worth as $1,254,795. The initial
407