Legal Opinion
Charles Weiner Corp. v. D. Jack Davis Corp.
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided March 24, 1982PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
David B. Saxe, J.
Although a private attorney is not yet required to perform legal services for free, once representation of a client in a litigation has begun, his right to withdraw is not absolute. (CPLR 321, subd [b], par 2.) The conditional nature of an attorney’s right to withdraw is due in part to the traditional responsibility of the court to regulate the legal profession (see First Nat. Bank of Eastlslip v Brower, 42 NY2d 471; Judiciary Law, §§ 53, 90,474) and its right to scrutinize fee arrangements between attorney and client.
The defendant’s attorneys have made a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In re the Estate of PottsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- First National Bank v. BrowerNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Booth, Lipton & Lipton v. CasselNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Heller v. KalischAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Cenetempo v. RaiaNew York Supreme Court · 1959
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v. AronoffDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
- In Re MeyersUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Holmes v. Y.J.A. Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Alvarado-Vargas v. 6422 Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Perez v. ArebaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.