On January 6, 2025, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Miller v. 22 Ericsson Owner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 50004(U), allowing counsel to withdraw for non-payment, explaining:
It is well settled that a party’s failure to pay legal fees is sufficient grounds to grant leave to withdraw.
Here, counsel submitted sufficient evidence, by way of attorney affirmation and respondent’s statement of account, reflecting the client’s notice of owed fees, and respondent’s failure to remit payment. Although petitioner disputes the creation of an attorney-client relationship with the subject limited liability companies, it is well settled that, in the absence of proof of actual authority to bind, words or conduct communicated to a third party may create the apparent authority of an agent to act on behalf of the principal. Apparent authority may exist in the absence of authority in fact, and, if established, may bind one to a third party with whom the purported agent had contracted even if, as in the present case, the third party has not carried the burden of proving that the agent actually had authority.
The issue of apparent authority presents a factual determination which is relevant only in determining the obligation for payment of attorney fees. Whether counsel was only permitted to represent Berley alone, or did, in fact, represent the managed limited liability companies sufficient to bind them to payment of counsel’s fees, at this juncture, is a separate question that is subject to further inquiry. Accordingly, counsel’s request to withdraw its representation is granted. There is no obligation on the part of counsel to finance the litigation or render gratuitous services.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).