The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 AMBER JACKSON-BOYD, No. 2:25-cv-00674-DC-AC
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR
14 PATRICIA BROWN, et al., PLAINTIFF
15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 10)
16
17 This matter is before the court on the motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel of record
18 filed by attorney Robert Ross Powell on August 25, 2025. (Doc. No. 10.) Pursuant to Local Rule
19 230(g), the pending motion was taken under submission to be decided on the papers. (Doc. No.
20 13.) For the reasons explained below, the court will grant the pending motion to withdraw as
21 counsel.
22 LEGAL STANDARD
23 An attorney’s motion to withdrawal as counsel of record is governed by the Local Rules
24 of this court. Specifically, Local Rule 182 provides as follows:
25 Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may
not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of
26 court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other
parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide an affidavit
27 stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client
and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.
28
1 L.R. 182(d). In addition, “[w]ithdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional
2 Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of
3 those Rules.” Id.
4 Rule 1.16(a) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides several grounds
5 upon which an attorney “shall withdraw from the representation of a client,” including if:
6 (1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client is
bringing an action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in
7 litigation, or taking an appeal, without probable cause and for the
purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person;
8
(2) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the
9 representation will result in violation of these rules or of the State
Bar Act;
10
(3) the lawyer’s mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably
11 difficult to carry out the representation effectively; or
12 (4) the client discharges the lawyer.
13 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a) (emphasis added).
14 In contrast to Rule 1.16(a), a withdrawal based on the grounds listed in Rule 1.16(b) is
15 permissive, not mandatory. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b). Those permissive grounds include to
16 following:
17 (1) the client insists upon presenting a claim or defense in litigation,
or asserting a position or making a demand in a non-litigation matter,
18 that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by
good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of
19 existing law;
20 (2) the client either seeks to pursue a criminal or fraudulent course of
conduct or has used the lawyer’s services to advance a course of
21 conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes was a crime or fraud;
22 (3) the client insists that the lawyer pursue a course of conduct that
is criminal or fraudulent;
23
(4) the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for
24 the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively;
25 (5) the client breaches a material term of an agreement with, or
obligation, to the lawyer relating to the representation, and the lawyer
26 has given the client a reasonable warning after the breach that the
lawyer will withdraw unless the client fulfills the agreement or
27 performs the obligation;
28 /////
1 (6) the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the
representation;
2
(7) the inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best
3 interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal;
4 (8) the lawyer’s mental or physical condition renders it difficult for
the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively;
5
(9) a continuation of the representation is likely to result in a violation
6 of these rules or the State Bar Act; or
7 (10) the lawyer believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before
a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause
8 for withdrawal.
9 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b).
10 For permissive withdrawals, the decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to
11 withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court. “In ruling on a motion to withdraw as
12 counsel, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal
13 may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice;
14 and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Beard v.
15 Shuttermart of Cal., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00594-WQH-NLS, 2008 WL 410694, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb.
16 13, 2008); see also CE Res., Inc. v. Magellan Grp., LLC, No. 2:08-cv-02999-MCE-KJM, 2009
17 WL 3367489, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2009) (noting that “[u]ltimately, the court’s ruling must
18 involve a balancing of the equities”).
19 For both mandatory and permissive withdrawals, representation shall not be terminated
20 until the attorney “has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the
21 rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other
22 counsel.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d).
23 ANALYSIS
24 Here, Attorney Powell moves to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff in this action because
25 “there is a complete breakdown of any sort of workable relationship between Counsel and
26 Client.” (Doc. No. 10 at 3.) Attorney Powell explains that “[a]fter months of attempting
27 communications in which significant periods of time would pass without response and there was
28 little to no progress on issues between the parties, it became clear the relationship was
1 unworkable.” (Id. at 5.) Consequently, “there has been a fundamental and irreconcilable break-
2 down in the attorney-client relationship.” (Id. at 6.) The pending motion thus seeks permissive
3 withdrawal based on California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b). (Id. at 6–7.)
4 As for the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other parties, the court notes that
5 Defendants did not file an opposition to the pending motion for withdrawal, nor otherwise express
6 concerns regarding prejudice or delay.
7 As for the delay that may be caused by permitting withdrawal, the court notes that this
8 case is still in the early stages of litigation; Defendants filed an answer just a month before the
9 pending motion was filed, and a scheduling order has not yet issued. (See Doc. No. 9, 12.) Thus,
10 granting the pending motion and providing time for Plaintiff to obtain new counsel to represent
11 her in this case will not cause significant delay in resolving this case.
12 Further, Attorney Powell has “taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable
13 prejudice to the rights of [Plaintiff],” by giving Plaintiff ample notice of his intention to file this
14 motion. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). Specifically, after many previous unsuccessful
15 discussions, Attorney Powell provided written notice to Plaintiff on June 25, 2025, two months
16 before filing the motion, and on August 15, 2025, Attorney Powell provided Plaintiff with a copy
17 of the motion and his declaration. (Doc. No. 10-1 at ¶¶ 5–6.)
18 Attorney Powell also provided the court with Plaintiff’s last known mailing address and
19 email address, as required by Local Rule 182. (Id. at ¶¶ 3–4.)
20 Having considered the motion and Attorney Powell’s representations, the court finds that
21 the permissive withdrawal sought by counsel is appropriate under Rule 1.16(b).
22 Thus, the pending motion to withdrawal as counsel for Plaintiff will be granted. Plaintiff
23 will be provided thirty (30) days to obtain new counsel to represent her in this action or to inform
24 the court of her intention to proceed pro se in this case.
25 CONCLUSION
26 For the reasons set forth above:
27 1. The motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED;
28 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Robert Ross Powell as the counsel
1 of record for Plaintiff;
2 3. Attorney Powell shall comply with all obligations under Rule 1.16(e) of the
3 California Rules of Professional Conduct regarding release of a client’s papers and
4 property and return of unearned fees, if any;
5 4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall file
6 either: (i) a notice of appearance by new counsel obtained to represent her in this
7 action, or (11) a notice informing the court that she will continue prosecuting this
8 action pro se;
9 5. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order may result in the court
10 dismissing this action due to her failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the
11 court’s order;
12 6. Plaintiff is substituted in pro se and is directed to comply with all future hearing
13 dates and the rules of the court;
14 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the following contact information as
15 Plaintiff's address of record;
16 Amber Jackson-Boyd
24493 Pulliam Rd.
17 Thompsonville, IL 92890
18 littlethundersquaw61 @ yahoo.com
19 8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Plaintiff by mail and by
20 email.
21
09 IT IS SO ORDERED. □
23 | Dated: _ November 25, 2025 IVs Os
Dena Coggins
24 United States District Judge
25
26
27
28