Beal Bank SSB v Salvador [2003] FMSC 8; 11 FSM Intrm. 349 (Pon. 2003) (7 February 2003)

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Beal Bank S.S.B. v. Salvador
[2003] FMSC 8; 11 FSM Intrm. 349 (Pon. 2003)

[2003] FMSC 8; [11 FSM Intrm. 349]

BEAL BANK, S.S.B., and THE UNITED STATES
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

SODER SALVADOR and BETSY K. SALVADOR,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2001-040

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

Andon L. Amaraich
Chief Justice

Decided: February 7, 2003

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: Craig D. Reffner, Esq.
Law Office of Fredrick L. Ramp
P.O. Box 1480
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

[11 FSM Intrm. 350]

For the Defendants: Joseph S. Phillip, Esq.
P.O. Box 464
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Attorney, Trial Counselor and Client - Withdrawal of Counsel
An attorney’s motion to withdraw after advising his clients at depositions will be denied because the record contains no evidence that defendants discharged him at the depositions’ end, or withdrew their authorization for him to represent them in all aspects of this proceeding; because a client’s failure to contact counsel has no effect on representation especially when counsel has provided no evidence of his efforts to contact the client; because counsel’s failure to secure a fee agreement between himself and his clients is not a basis for terminating representation; and because the case is ready for trial, and withdrawal of counsel at this juncture would materially compromise defendants’ interests. Beal Bank S.S.B. v. Salvador, [2003] FMSC 8; 11 FSM Intrm. 349, 350 (Pon. 2003).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

ANDON L. AMARAICH, Chief Justice:

On January 17, 2003, Joseph Phillip, counsel for defendants Soder and Betsy Salvador, filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Mr. Phillip states that his appearance in this case was limited to advising defendants during depositions, there is no fee agreement in place, he has not been authorized to further appear on defendants’ behalf in this case, and defendants have not communicated with him since the depositions. Plaintiffs oppose Mr. Phillip’s withdrawal.

Rule 1.16 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct articulates the bases upon which an attorney may terminate his or her representation of clients. After careful review of that rule, the Court has concluded that none of the bases for terminating representation exist in the present case. First, the record contains no evidence that defendants discharged Mr. Phillip at the conclusion of depositions, or withdrew their authorization for him to represent them in all aspects of this proceeding. Second, a client’s failure to contact counsel has no effect on representation especially where, as here, counsel has provided no evidence of his efforts to contact the clients. Third, counsel’s failure to secure a fee agreement between himself and his clients is not a basis for terminating representation. Fourth, this case is apparently ready for trial, and withdrawal of counsel at this juncture would materially compromise defendants’ interests.

Accordingly, the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is hereby DENIED.

* * * *