Surrogate López Torres
ESTATE OF BEULAH M. JOEL a/k/a BEULAH MAGDALENE JOEL, Deceased (16-1330) — In this contested probate proceeding, the law firm Mishcon de Reya New York LLP (Mishcon), counsel of record for objectants Janice Joel-Rimple, Allison Joel, Leslie Joel, Colin Joel, Andre Joel, Pelham Gittens, and Earl Nurse (objectants), move by order to show cause to be relieved as counsel. All objectants were served with notice of the order to show cause. On September 17, 2019, the return date of the order to show cause, none of the objectants appeared. However, for the reasons stated below, the motion to be relieved as counsel is denied. The petition for probate was filed in this proceeding on April 1, 2016. Objections were filed on October 26, 2017 by Mishcon, as counsel for the objectants. Since that time, the court has conducted conferences and the parties have engaged in discovery. In the affirmation in support of its motion to be relieved, Mishcon states that two of the firm’s attorneys, who had been handling the proceeding, left the firm earlier this year. One of those attorneys had agreed to continue his representation of the objectants outside of Mishcon, however, that arrangement fell through. The Mishcon affirmation further informs that the point person of contact for all of the objectants had been David Davidson, a non-party who is the son of one of the objectants, because most of the objectants lived outside the country and were “not fluent in English.” Mishcon contends that Mr. Davidson has been unresponsive and uncooperative, despite a number of attempts to communicate with him. The attorney affirmation also alleges that the objectants themselves have been unresponsive to requests for information relevant to the proceeding. The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. Cashdan v. Cashdan, 243 A.D.2d 598, 663 (2d Dep’t 1997). An attorney seeking to terminate his representation of a client must make a showing of good cause for such termination. Catrone v. Catrone, 92 A.D.2d 559 (2d Dep’t 1983). Here, Mishcon contends that Mr. Davidson has been uncooperative and incommunicative. However, Mishcon fails to set forth any attempts to communicate directly with the objectants, who are the firm’s clients. Once Mr. Davidson, who is not a party to this proceeding, ceased communications, Mishcon had a duty to attempt to contact its clients. 22 NYCRR 1200.0 [1.4]. Alleged barriers of language or borders do not excuse Mishcon’s duty to remain in contact with its clients.1 Id. Indeed, one of the objectants resides in New Jersey and there is no indication that Mishcon made any attempts to contact that client. Moreover, Mishcon alleges that the objectants have refused to provide information necessary to proceed with representation in this matter. However, there is no explanation of what information is required from the objectants to litigate their objections to probate. Further, there is no indication that the objectants have rendered it unreasonably difficult for counsel to proceed with representing their interests. 22 NYCRR 1200.0 [1.16]. In fact, substantial discovery has already been conducted in this matter. Neither is there any indication that the firm has had a fundamental disagreement with its clients rendering representation infeasible. Id. Mishcon simply fails to set forth sufficient facts to warrant withdrawal, particularly at this late stage in the litigation. Id.; Catrone at 559; Haskell v. Haskell, 185 A.D.2d 333 (2d Dep’t 1992). Accordingly, Mishcon’s motion to be relieved as counsel of record for objectants is denied. Mishcon shall mail a copy of this decision to each objectant. This constitutes the decision of the Court. Dated: October 3, 2019
