Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer

When can counsel withdraw from a case?

Should the Supreme Court of Canada decide to limit the authority of judges to prohibit lawyers from walking away from trials, oversight of the withdrawal process will effectively disappear, warns a federal Crown.

Greg DelBigio argues the law society can handle cases of lawyers unethically withdrawing from cases rather than leaving the issue to the courts.
Greg DelBigio argues the law society can handle cases of lawyers unethically withdrawing from cases rather than leaving the issue to the courts.
Ron Reimer argued before the top court last week that professional standards aren’t enough to monitor lawyers withdrawing from representation in criminal trials.

“The idea of effective oversight by the law society is a bit illusory,” Reimer says. “A trial judge has a role in terms of supervision of counsel and in ensuring the administration of justice.”

In the case of R. v. Cunningham, the top court is considering how judges handle requests to withdraw and whether courts have the jurisdiction to review those requests, a decision that could change the rules for criminal lawyers in several provinces, including Ontario.

Last week, the Canadian Bar Association intervened in the matter, arguing in favour of the right of counsel to get off the record.
If courts are given the authority to review and lawyers are compelled to submit to the court their reasons for withdrawal, breaches of solicitor-client privilege will surely arise, the CBA says.

When a request to withdraw from a criminal proceeding arises, courts should simply operate under the assumption and expectation that lawyers uphold professional standards, says Greg DelBigio, past chairman of the CBA’s national criminal justice section.

“Should we presume that lawyers conduct themselves ethically? We think yes,” DelBigio says.

The issue first arose when Jennie Cunningham, a lawyer with the Yukon Legal Services Society, asked the court to remove her as counsel of record for a man accused of sexual assault offences against a six-year-old girl.

The accused man’s legal aid certificate was revoked as a result of unreported income. A territorial judge, however, denied Cunningham’s application, citing the resulting trial delays and possible harm to the Crown’s case should the child’s memory fade over time.

That decision was later reversed by the Yukon Court of Appeal, which noted a principle followed in British Columbia: “That a court has no right in law to order counsel to continue in the defence of an accused after counsel has advised that he or she will no longer represent the accused.”

Reimer asked the Supreme Court not to apply that standard to the rest of the country.

“[In B.C.], they don’t offer the court any reasons why they’re going, just a courtesy goodbye,” he says.

Currently in Ontario and other provinces, courts reserve the authority to find a lawyer who refuses to remain, “barring good reason,” in contempt.

Should the Supreme Court now decide to uphold the appeal court decision, it would effectively afford lawyers greater freedom to withdraw from cases while diminishing the capacity of judges to prevent them from leaving or even inquire into dealings between lawyer and client.

The CBA asserts that lawyers who withdraw unethically will be duly reprimanded by the law society.
Reimer, however, questions that oversight process.

“Is there really going to be any oversight? What’s the basis for even referring it to the law society?”

The CBA says its code of conduct should dictate when a lawyer can withdraw from a case and that oversight of the process should fall to the legal profession, not the courts.

“Misconduct is a matter for law societies,” says DelBigio .

“While courts might have a limited jurisdiction to prohibit a lawyer from withdrawal from a case, it should be rarely exercised,” he adds.

That authority was exercised earlier this month in Kitchener, however, when a lawyer’s attempt to get off the record was quashed by a judge.

In that case, counsel applied for a withdrawal after his client could no longer afford to pay privately, according to the Record newspaper. A supporter of the legal aid boycott of murder and guns-and-gangs cases led by the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the lawyer was unwilling to remain on the case at legal aid rates.

Still, Mark Ertel, president of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa, says the ruling won’t affect the boycott itself.

As in the Bryant matter, Ertel says the province’s criminal lawyers will continue to abide by the norms of the profession and won’t defy a judge’s orders.

“We’re not going to do things that are contemptuous of courts,” Ertel says.

According to the CBA’s code of conduct, lawyers may optionally withdraw services when a client fails to pay legal fees or when a serious loss of confidence has occurred in the lawyer-client relationship, such as the refusal to act on the lawyer’s advice on a significant point.

But DelBigio says courts would still have some authority to force counsel to remain.

If a lawyer applies for withdrawal to take a trip to Hawaii, for example, the court would not touch on matters protected by privilege in questioning the move, he says.

“In that instance, the court might have the power to compel a lawyer to continue.”

However, there are other circumstances of greater import in which a judge must be allowed to intervene, Reimer says.

The proceedings involving Cunningham’s client and a very young complainant illustrate that need, he argues. In such instances, “the interest of justice requires that this person has counsel and this matter goes ahead now.”

Reimer doesn’t dispute that there are ethical situations requiring a lawyer to justifiably seek a withdrawal. But he adds that withdrawals for non-payment of legal fees are a separate matter.

“The fees situation is different. It’s really about security of payment. And there are options in those circumstances.”

Reimer also addresses the argument that non-payment can raise an ethical issue since an unpaid lawyer may feel inordinately compelled to see a swift end to a trial.

“That kind of suggestion, frankly, does a disservice to the bar.”

The suggestion that “honourable counsel” wouldn’t carry out their obligations to their clients is invalid, he says.


+17 # pAB cHETTY 2009-11-23 12:46
Everybody in the Courtroom is getting paid by the Govt, including Sheriff, court reporter, Crown Counsel and Judge Except the Defence Lawyer who has a non paying client. Why should defence lawyer continue to represent a non paying client?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+6 # Richard ter Borg 2009-11-23 13:40
Individual defence counsel should not have to provide "legal aid" which is for the indirect benefit of all society and should be funded by all.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+10 # Chatty 2009-11-23 18:11
I agree if legal fees are not being paid, nobody should be made to work for free. Does your dentist work without charge? Does your vet work without charge? So, why should legal counsel? The Legal Aid system needs a major fix.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+8 # Pro bono 2009-11-24 07:58
The individual lawyer should have the right to decide if they are going to work for free, not the Crown, the judge or anyone else. In no other profession in Canada can someone be ordered to work for free. The contract is between the client and the lawyer and it's no one else's business, not even the courts. If it happens to b a financial dispute and the court pays the lawyers regular hourly rate to do the ordered work then MAYBE the court could have a say...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+3 # Gov 2009-11-27 12:20
Maybe the court should be able to order legal aid to continue to pay, if there is some urgency to the file.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+4 # Richard Perras 2009-11-26 13:00
I would add to the above comments that not only would an attorney ordered to represent a non paying client be ordered to work for free: he or she also has to assume costs like subpoenas that have to be served or experts and their reports and if it happens on an appeal the costs are significant. Highly significant.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+3 # Ian ferguson 2010-01-08 03:27
If the accussed can no longer afford the services of a lawyer due to multiple delays at the hands of the crown and as such must make a decision about the requirements of life { shelter Food and the like} or being represented by a competent lawyer...most people will choose the requirments of life. This leaves the accused at risk of no representation.
I suggest that in a fair system it would be far more reasonable to pay all defence council the same that we pay the crowns{ unless the accused has the wishes and the means to opt out of this agreement}
As the legal system should be about the equal rights of all to a fair trial...and not just a means of disrupting a persons monetary freedoms...coun cil as well as the accused.
If the crown is paid by we the people then so should the defence otherwise you risk Citizens going unrepresented as well as possibly going to prison due to a lac of equal reasorces
Thats not justice that is Buisness
Thank you for your time
Ian Ferguson
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment

  • 25 years of Law Times
    25 years of Law Times This January marks exactly 25 years since we began publishing. After a year of celebrating our 25th year, Law Times and Canadian Lawyer editor-in-chief Gail…
  • A walk down memory lane
    A walk down memory lane As Law Times celebrates its 25th year of publishing, we talk to founding editor Jim Middlemiss about the paper's early years and some of the…
  • Wrongful Conviction Day
    Wrongful Conviction Day October 2nd marked the first annual Wrongful Conviction Day by the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. Kabeer Sethi spoke with the organizers of…
More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

Is the constitutional challenge of Bill C-51 likely to succeed?
Yes, it's a bad law.
No, it's defensible in light of current threats
The courts will uphold some aspects of the law and reject others