7.08.01. Mandatory Withdrawal

Rule 1.16(a) sets out three situations where a lawyer must seek to withdraw from representing a client, where: (1) the representation would violate the ethical rules or other law; (2) the lawyer cannot physically or mentally represent the client competently; and (3) the lawyer is fired by the client.

Mark Sallee filed suit on behalf of his client against Viacom – claiming that Viacom misappropriated the idea for a cartoon that was ultimately turned into the show called the Rugrats.  In the course of the representation, it became clear that Viacom did not use the client’s idea.  The client refused to allow the attorney to dismiss the case, however.  Viacom wins summary judgment and seeks sanctions against the attorney for continuing to pursue the claim after it became clear it was meritless.  Is Sallee subject to sanctions? [Cargile v. Viacom Intern., Inc., 282 F.Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Fla. 2003)]

Yes.  Rule 3.1 provides that a lawyer acts unethically if the lawyer brings or pursues a “frivolous” claim.  Here, continuing to pursue the action after it was clear that it had no merit violated this rule.  The court notes that the lawyer had an ethical obligation to seek to withdraw from representing the client under Rule 1.16(a)(1) – even if the client did not want to dismiss the case.