On August 23, 2024, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Altium Growth Fund, L.P. v. Tingo Group, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op. 32993(U), refusing to allow counsel withdraw from a representation despite unpaid fees because of the disruption it would cause, explaining:
The decision to grant or deny a motion to be relieved as counsel lies within the sound discretion
of the trial court. In order to terminate the relationship with a client, the moving counsel must make a showing of good or sufficient cause and reasonable notice.. Greenberg fails to meet its burden that withdrawal is appropriate at this time.As an initial matter, the Court notes that a corporation must appear in a civil action by attorney. Greenberg has been counsel of record in this action for Tingo since its inception and has participated substantially on Tingo’s behalf. In its moving papers, Greenberg fails to identify any substitute counsel or procedure for any substitute counsel for Tingo to be brought up to speed such that the Judgment Creditor would not be prejudiced by its withdrawal.
To be clear, Greenberg’s basis for withdrawal is that Tingo has an unfulfilled obligation — i.e., it is owed money by Tingo. However, the mere fact that a client fails to pay an attorney for services rendered does not, without more, entitle the attorney to withdraw. As discussed above, the moving papers make no mention of any provision for successor counsel or otherwise adequately address how the Judgment Creditor would not be substantially prejudiced by their withdrawal. This is plainly insufficient. Unquestionably, the Judgment Creditor would be prejudiced. Thus, the motion is DENIED.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).