Lexplug logoLexplug

Whiting v. Lacara

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
187 F.3d 317 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney may be permitted to withdraw as counsel, even on the eve of trial, when a client's insistence on dictating legal strategy and threat of a malpractice suit creates a functional conflict of interest, forcing the attorney to choose between violating ethical duties to the court and facing litigation from the client.


Facts:

  • Joseph M. Whiting, a former police officer, retained his third attorney, Garrett R. Lacara, to represent him in a civil rights action regarding his termination.
  • Whiting allegedly failed to follow Lacara's legal advice, demanded publicity against counsel's recommendations, and insisted on arguing collateral issues.
  • Whiting also demanded that Lacara continue to argue a due process claim that the court had already dismissed.
  • Without Lacara's consent, Whiting drafted a settlement offer and demanded that Lacara serve it on the defendants.
  • Whiting entered Lacara's office without permission, searched through his inbox, and refused to leave, prompting Lacara to call 911.
  • During oral arguments on appeal, Whiting confirmed that he believed he could force Lacara to call specific witnesses and make arguments against the attorney's professional judgment.
  • Whiting also stated at oral argument that he believed he had grounds to sue Lacara for malpractice if Lacara continued in the case and did not follow his dictates.

Procedural Posture:

  • Joseph M. Whiting filed a civil rights action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
  • The district court granted defendants' partial summary judgment motion, dismissing Whiting's due process claims.
  • Whiting's attorney, Garrett R. Lacara, filed a motion in the district court to be relieved as counsel.
  • The district court denied Lacara's motion to withdraw.
  • Lacara, as appellant, filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was granted an emergency stay.
  • The district court denied a second motion by Lacara to withdraw as counsel.
  • Lacara's consolidated appeals from the denials were heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Whiting as the appellee.

Locked

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 district court abuse its discretion by denying an attorney's motion to withdraw when the client's stated intention to dictate legal strategy, including pursuing previously dismissed claims, and to sue the attorney for malpractice if not obeyed, creates an irreconcilable conflict for the attorney?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. A district court abuses its discretion by denying an attorney's motion to withdraw where the client's conduct creates a functional conflict of interest. While district courts have wide latitude in managing their dockets and denying withdrawal motions on the eve of trial, that interest is outweighed when the attorney is placed in an impossible situation. Here, Whiting's statements during oral argument confirmed that he intended to dictate legal strategy, including pressing claims already dismissed by the court. His concurrent threat to sue Lacara for malpractice if his dictates were not followed created a functional conflict of interest. This conflict would force Lacara to choose between exposure to a malpractice suit and potential sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for pursuing frivolous legal contentions. This untenable position, which jeopardizes the attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court, justifies permitting withdrawal.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the boundary of a trial court's discretion in denying an attorney's motion to withdraw. It establishes that a 'functional conflict of interest' created by a client's actions can constitute a sufficient reason for withdrawal, even when it would disrupt judicial economy on the eve of trial. The decision prioritizes an attorney's ethical obligations to the court over calendar management, providing a critical protection for lawyers representing clients who demand they pursue frivolous or unwarranted legal strategies. This precedent reinforces the principle that an attorney is an officer of the court with independent professional duties, not merely a 'hired gun' required to follow every client command, however misguided.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Whiting v. Lacara (1999) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Whiting v. Lacara