Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc.
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1937, 1993 WL 41076, 814 F. Supp. 414 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law firm cannot withdraw from representation under a contingency fee agreement on the grounds of an unreasonable financial burden if the withdrawal would cause a material adverse effect on the client's interests, such as the inability to find substitute counsel.
Facts:
- Peter F. Rossi smoked cigarettes manufactured by Defendants from 1942 until his death from lung cancer on May 28, 1982.
- In 1983, the law firm Budd Larner and two other firms entered into an agreement to jointly litigate cigarette-related health claims.
- Budd Larner, on behalf of M. Susan Haines (administrator of Rossi's estate), entered into a contingency fee agreement to sue several tobacco companies.
- Under the contingency fee agreement, Budd Larner agreed to bear all litigation expenses, which were recoverable only if Haines prevailed at trial.
- Over approximately ten years, Budd Larner incurred significant financial costs, including over $500,000 in out-of-pocket expenses and millions in lawyer time across this and seven similar cases.
- Budd Larner's litigation against the tobacco industry became what the firm considered an unreasonable financial burden.
- Budd Larner attempted to find a substitute law firm to represent Haines but was unsuccessful.
Procedural Posture:
- M. Susan Haines, as administrator for the estate of Peter F. Rossi, filed suit against Liggett Group, Inc. and other tobacco companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (a federal trial court).
- The case was reassigned from United States District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the current court by order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- Budd Larner, counsel for Haines, filed a motion in the District Court to withdraw as counsel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an unreasonable financial burden on a law firm in a contingency fee case constitute good cause to permit withdrawal from representation if the client would be materially prejudiced and unable to find substitute counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Lechner, District Judge
No. A law firm may not withdraw from representation under a contingency fee agreement due to an unreasonable financial burden when doing so would materially harm the client's interests. A court has the discretion to deny a motion to withdraw, even if good cause is shown, to maintain fairness to the litigants and preserve the court's resources. Here, withdrawal would be severely prejudicial to Haines, as she is unable to find substitute counsel, and Budd Larner is uniquely qualified due to its extensive experience litigating against these same defendants. The contingency fee agreement itself is a binding contract wherein the attorney knowingly assumes the risk of unprofitability. Allowing withdrawal would undermine the public policy of providing access to justice through contingency fee arrangements, as it would permit attorneys to abandon clients whenever a case becomes more arduous or less profitable than initially expected.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high ethical and contractual obligations an attorney owes to a client, particularly under a contingency fee agreement. It establishes that financial unprofitability, even if significant, is not a dispositive factor for withdrawal when a client's ability to pursue their case is at stake. The ruling signals that courts should actively manage complex litigation to prevent financially powerful litigants from winning through a 'war of attrition,' rather than simply permitting the weaker party's counsel to withdraw. This strengthens the position of clients in contingency fee arrangements by ensuring firms cannot easily abandon cases that become unexpectedly difficult or expensive.
