Kriegsman v. Kriegsman
375 A.2d 1253, 150 N.J. Super. 474 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney who accepts a retainer to conduct a legal proceeding enters an implied agreement to prosecute the matter to its conclusion and may not withdraw solely due to a client's inability to pay fees, especially when withdrawal would prejudice the client.
Facts:
- Mary-Ann Kriegsman retained the Rose firm for her divorce action against her husband, Bernard Kriegsman.
- Kriegsman paid the firm a total of $2,000 in retainers plus costs, with the understanding that she would be responsible for additional fees.
- The firm's work became unusually extensive and time-consuming because Bernard Kriegsman, representing himself, was uncooperative and failed to comply with court orders.
- After approximately 3.5 months, the Rose firm had billed over $7,300 for 110 hours of work.
- At that time, Mary-Ann Kriegsman was on welfare and did not have sufficient funds to pay the additional fees incurred.
- The Rose firm sought to withdraw from representation due to her inability to pay the outstanding balance.
Procedural Posture:
- The Rose firm filed a motion in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, the trial court, seeking to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Mary-Ann Kriegsman.
- Plaintiff Mary-Ann Kriegsman opposed the motion.
- The Chancery Division denied the Rose firm's application.
- The Rose firm, as petitioners-appellants, appealed the interlocutory order to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 a law firm have justifiable cause to withdraw from representing a client in a matrimonial action, where trial is imminent, solely because the client is unable to pay legal fees that have accrued beyond the initial retainer?
Opinions:
Majority - Michels, J.A.D.
No. A law firm does not have justifiable cause to withdraw from representing a client simply because the client is unable to pay all demanded fees. When a firm accepts a retainer, it impliedly agrees to prosecute the matter to a conclusion and cannot abandon the case without justifiable or reasonable cause, or the client's consent. The court reasoned that a client's inability to pay is not a sufficient cause for withdrawal, particularly when trial is imminent and the client would be prejudiced by the difficulty of obtaining new counsel. The court emphasized that the legal profession is 'a branch of the administration of justice and not a mere money-getting trade,' and attorneys' obligations do not cease when a case becomes more arduous or less profitable than anticipated. Citing the Canons of Professional Ethics, the court noted that a lawyer should not abandon an 'unfinished task to the detriment of his client except for reasons of honor or self-respect.'
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the ethical duty of an attorney to see a representation through to its conclusion once undertaken. It establishes that the financial interests of the attorney are subordinate to the duties owed to the client and the administration of justice, especially when withdrawal would cause significant prejudice. The ruling reinforces the principle that the attorney-client relationship is not a mere commercial contract that can be terminated for non-payment. Future courts will look to this case to prevent attorneys from abandoning clients in difficult financial situations at critical stages of litigation, thereby protecting vulnerable clients and upholding the professional responsibilities of the bar.
Unlock the full brief for Kriegsman v. Kriegsman