Dude, women can be lawyers as well as surgeons.
They can, but the OP used “he” when referring to the lawyer in question.
Conflict of interest is the first thing that come to my mind.
How the hell do you expect a bunch of strangers on the internet who know next to nothing of the specifics of your SIL “sitch” except what you’ve heard from your wife, as to why an attorney would fire his client?
Whoops, sorry, I missed that.
“Expect”? Calm the eff down.
Here’s another one for you:
spec·u·late
ˈspekyəˌlāt
verb
- form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
It’s a matter of my own curiosity.
I’d say that the client has lied to the lawyer, perjured himself about the adultery, or worst of all, hasn’t paid the lawyer.
The lawyer had already agreed to represent John. He backs out only after seeing the text records.
John probably wouldn’t have been the first client to tell him a fib, so I doubt that would phase him any. It has to be a conflict of interest of some kind. He some sort of relationship with the recipient of the texts, strong enough that it would unethical to continue to represent John. Hell, it may be the lawyer’s son or daughter.
What if John’s attorney is actually related to Sally? Maybe John didn’t actually know all of his in-laws and inadvertently hired his wife’s brother to represent him or something?
Or, this is the first time he’s talking to his client in a few weeks, and the lawyer now realizes that he’s got to fly out to Albuquerque to help his mom sell her house and settle into her new nursing home and that’s going to take months, and he really can’t handle this case right now, so sorry.
In other words, backing out of the case might have nothing to do with the case itself, and everything to do with the attorney’s private affairs.
Depends on the situation. If I haven’t formally entered an appearance on behalf of the client, I can drop them for any reason or no reason. If I have entered an appearance, it usually requires permission from the Court, and the return of any unearned fees. In some instances, the Court may not allow an attorney to withdraw.
If the case is not in court the attorney can leave at anytime so long as he doesn’t harm his client (e.g. he can’t blow a filing deadline).
Divorce attorneys get paid by the hour. There is no financial incentive to drop a loser. That said, John isn’t a loser. In New York, matrimonial judges do not give a shit if someone committed adultery. I can’t imagine it would be different in another state.
Finally, if attorneys dropped clients who lied to them, there would be no one left to represent. Attorneys only have an ethical duty to prevent their clients from lying to the court. Clients lie to attorneys all the time.
The situation in the OP sounds very unusual. I can’t think of any plausible reason for why John’s attorney would quit. If he knew the person John was having an affair with, then that would work, but that sounds very unlikely.
Not necessarily. I usually charge a flat fee based on how time consuming I expect the case will be.
It is very different in my state. We allow no fault divorce only if both parties consent. Otherwise, at least one party must prove a fault ground, such as adultery, or the parties cannot get a divorce. Marital fault can be considered in property division, and can also effect child custody.
“Every man is presumed innocent until proven broke.”
For a matrimonial case? I’ve never seen that done here. That would make the lawyer’s actions in the OP more understandable.
What state? Considering adultery in property distribution sounds like a tremendous waste of time.
Nah, I’m thinking John’s lawyer learned something in the face-to-face that caused him to withdraw (like he has some association with the potential affair party). I would think *if *he was getting a flat fee & learned of additional complications he would say it’ll cost you $Y instead of $X but wouldn’t withdraw w/o having this conversation w/ John first.
As other’s have stated, the most likely reason is some sort of conflict of interest. I just don’t see how it would be a conflict with the text recipient. She (presumptive she) would just be another witness to the proceedings. I’d be more likely to look for history between Sally and John’s lawyer. Unrealized until the first meeting because John had never told him her maiden name.
I’m thinking that John’s Lawyer has some sort of relationship with the woman John was planning an affair with or her husband and feels to continue to represent John would be a conflict of interest.
its possible those texts, if recent, suggest behavior counter to the legal advice Lawyer X, gave his client during initial sit-down. He says avoid doing or saying something that might compromise our chances in a custody dispute and make my job harder, and the content of the texts shows a client who won’t listen or is self-destructive to his legal interest.
If lawyer X, has a healthy practice and a good reputation, he can afford to be pick and choose.
Can’t speak for Oakminster, obviously, but I’m in Oklahoma and just went through my divorce trial week before last. And yes, the judge allowed us to present evidence of my soon-to-be ex’s infidelity (copies of texts, no less!) into evidence to be considered when deciding property division. So it’s definitely considered relevant in at least some cases in some states.
Or maybe the lawyer has a “No Lying To ME” policy. I suspect there may be situations where an attorney could make that an enforceable condition of a retainer agreement.