Sometimes phrased as “I believe Mr Green has left the courthouse.”
(Mr Franklin does not have much currency in Canada.)
You haven’t established who “the colleague” is. So I can’t confidently understand the OP.
I assumed the “colleague” is the “acquaintance” from the first sentence of the OP.
I guessed that but you know what they say about assumptions, they make an ass out of you and mptions.
In criminal cases, it depends how close they are to trial and whether there will be prejudice to the accused. If the accused is not in jail and the Crown is prepared to agree to an adjournment, there likely will not be prejudice, in the sense of harming the accused’s right to make full answer and defence. Delay caused by the accused’s lawyer withdrawing is not normally counted as a breach of trial within a reasonable time.
I have heard defence lawyers assert that they have an absolute right to withdraw, without the court’s permission, provided they take steps to ensure the accused is not prejudiced, they facilitate transfer of the file to another lawyer proposed by the accused, and so on.
I’m also aware of cases where defence lawyers have withdrawn on the eve of trial, simply advising the court that they are no longer able to represent the client. Full stop.
I was also involved in one case where the defence lawyer left the case mid-trial, because of a public disagreement with the accused. He explained his reasons to the court, but firmly stated that he could no longer represent the accused. The court’s concern at that point was to ensure that the trial could continue without that defence counsel, who then left.
Indeed, Mr. Green goes by many names. By whatever name, he frequently goes missing in civil and family law cases. In my experience, he is especially likely to go missing in cases where the client insists the case is about principle, not the money.
Lawyers don’t necessarily have to withdraw, though.
There was an instance in one of the Lincoln Lawyer books where Mickey Haller obtains a continuance in a criminal case, explaining to the pissed-off defendant that an expert witness, Mr. Green still has to be located.
Seemed true to life.
My apologies for the confusion in my OP. Yes, the case is in Canada, but I’m interested in the principle of lawyers leaving more generally as well. The acquaintance and colleague are indeed the same person. Messrs. Franklin and Green have likely left the building; the sibling’s last known occupation was apparently stealing from the father to augment his drug dealing, which was curtailed by his trial for other criminal activity. The whole thing sounds like a bad novel or TV script.
As mentioned earlier, the rules for lawyers can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
But… but… Canadian money isn’t (mostly) green 
