Criminal conviction reversed because court abused its discretion in denying motion to substitute counsel and for short continuance.  [Added 12/20/11]

    Defendant was represented by the public defender’s office.  He subsequently retained private counsel, Skier, who on the day of trial “addressed the court and informed it that the day before [Defendant], who had been represented by the public defender to that point, hired Skier to represent him in the matter.  Skier noted that he had filed a notice of appearance, a motion to substitute counsel, and a motion for continuance. He requested a thirty to forty-five day continuance to see if the case could be worked out with the prosecutor or to prepare for trial.  The state objected, stating that it was prepared to go to trial that day.”  The State did not assert that it would be prejudiced by a delay.

    The court briefly inquired about the history of the case.  Without further inquiry, the court denied the motion for substitution.  The trial began, with Defendant represented by the public defender.  Defendant was convicted.  On appeal, he argued that the court erred in denying the motion.

    The Fourth DCA reversed.  The trial court made no finding that the motion was made in bad faith.  The case had been pending for 10 months and set for trial just 2 weeks earlier.  There was no evidence of delay by Defendant.  The court denied the motion without questioning Defendant about why he wanted to change lawyers and without offering him the option of self-representation.  “While the constitutional right to have counsel of one’s own choosing represent a defendant at trial  may yield to considerations of the administration of justice, not every request to substitute counsel on the eve of trial may sufficiently impact those considerations such that a request may be denied without inquiry and without the court making proper findings to show that the defendant’s constitutional right is not being arbitrarily denied.  Here, without such findings, we must find that the trial court abused its discretion.”  Alvarez v. State, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 4^th DCA, No. 4D09-4048, 12/14/2011).

Florida Supreme Court amends Rules of Judicial Administration regarding withdrawal motions, pro hac vice admissions, electronic filing, and electronic testimony.  [Added 10/4/11]

    The Florida Supreme Court amended the Rules of Judicial Administration effective January 1, 2012.  A sunEthics.com summary of the changes appears below.

    Motions to withdraw.  Amended Rule 2.505(f) requires that a motion to withdraw filed by a party's counsel include the client's last known telephone number and email address.  The Court stated in its opinion that the amendment would "make it easier for the court [in which the withdrawal motion was filed] to maintain contact with a party who may have to proceed pro se after withdrawal of the attorney."

    Pro hac vice admission.  Amended Rule 2.510(a) requires an attorney licensed in another state seeking pro hac vice admission in a Florida court "must make application in each court in which a case is filed even if a lower tribunal granted a motion to appear in the same case."  However, the amended rule goes on to specify that "[a]ppearances at different levels of the court system in the same case shall be deemed 1 appearance for the purposes of determining whether a foreign attorney has made more than 3 appearances within a 365-day period."

    Electronic filing.  New Rule 2.525(g) requires that "[a]ll documents transmitted in any electronic form under this rule must comply with the accessibility requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.526."  In turn, new Rule 2.526 requires that electronically-filed documents that become judicial branch records must be formatted in a manner that is accessible to persons with disabilities.

    Electronic testimony.  Looking toward the wider use of electronically-transmitted testimony, the Court amended Rule 2.530(d) to provide:  "A county or circuit court judge, general magistrate, special magistrate, or hearing officer may allow testimony to be taken through communication equipment if all parties consent or if permitted by another applicable rule of procedure."  In explaining this change, the Court stated that the amendment "will allow the various Florida Bar rules committees to consider whether their bodies of rules should be amended to allow for the use of communication equipment without the parties consent."  In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 73 So.3d 210 (Fla. 2011).

Fifth DCA denies motion to withdraw from appellate proceeding on ground of "irreconcilable differences."  [Added 9/26/11]

    In an "over one-year-old appeal from an attempted collateral attack on a foreclosure judgment entered in 2008, counsel for Appellants seek to withdraw."  They did so by filing a "Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as Local Co-Counsel."  The motion, however, failed to state the reasons for withdrawal (it stated only that "irreconcilable differences have arisen"), did not request court permission to withdraw as required by Fla.R.App.P. 9.440(b), and did not indicate that it had been served on the client.

    The Fifth DCA denied the motion for failure to comply with the rule.  In addition, the court "disapprove[d] the stated reason for withdrawal by Attorney [] given the vague nature of the request, the fact that briefing has been closed for many months, and that no oral argument was requested."  Benenati v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 70 So.3d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Law firm may be liable in legal malpractice action for harm to former client occurring after firm withdrew from representation.  [Added 4/17/11]  --  Golden Gate Homes, LC v. Levey, 59 So.3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Court erred in denying motion to withdraw filed by lawyer who wasn't being paid.  [Added 3/4/11]  --  Roth v. Cortina, 59 So.2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Court erred in denying continuance where party was unemployed and her counsel  withdrew on eve of trial.  [Added 12/3/10]  --  Quintero v. Kenyon, 48 So.3d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Court erred in granting Public Defender's motion to withdraw based on alleged "excessive caseload" conflict.  [Added 7/8/10]  --  State v. Bowens, 39 So.3d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).