By American Bar Association
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently released a formal opinion that provides guidance to lawyers seeking to end a representation under Rule 1.16(b)(1). The opinion addresses the meaning of the rule’s phrase “material adverse effect on the interests of the client” and provides a framework for analyzing when and whether such an effect prevents a lawyer from withdrawing.
Formal Opinion 516 explains that a lawyer’s withdrawal would have a “material adverse effect on the interests of the client” if it would result in significant harm to the forward progress of the client’s matter, significant increase in the cost of the matter or significant harm to the client’s ability to achieve the legal objectives that the lawyer previously agreed to pursue in the representation.
The opinion notes that “a lawyer may be able to remediate these adverse effects and withdraw in a manner that avoids or mitigates the harm that the rule seeks to prevent.” It also provides that the “lawyer’s motivation for withdrawal is not relevant under Model Rule 1.16(b)(1). Therefore, under the model rules, if the lawyer’s withdrawal does not cause ‘material adverse effect’ to the client’s interests in the matter in which the lawyer represents the client, a lawyer may withdraw to be able to accept the representation of a different client, including to avoid the conflict of interest that might otherwise result.”
The opinion concludes that “Ideally, lawyers will exercise care and thoughtfulness in deciding whether to accept an engagement and will generally refrain from ending a relationship without good cause, whether out of a sense of obligation, loyalty to the client or professional pride. But even careful lawyers may occasionally desire to end a representation …”
Two of the 10 members of the standing committee offered a written dissent to Formal Opinion 516 arguing the opinion is incomplete and should have provided additional guidance.
The standing committee periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying ABA model ethics rules to specific issues of legal practice, client-lawyer relationships and judicial behavior. Other recent ABA ethics opinions are available at www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/ethics_opinions.
—————
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/04/aba-issues-formal-opinion-516/https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/04/aba-issues-formal-opinion-516/)
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently released a formal opinion that provides guidance to lawyers seeking to end a representation under Rule 1.16(b)(1). The opinion addresses the meaning of the rule’s phrase “material adverse effect on the interests of the client” and provides a framework for analyzing when and whether such an effect prevents a lawyer from withdrawing.
Formal Opinion 516 explains that a lawyer’s withdrawal would have a “material adverse effect on the interests of the client” if it would result in significant harm to the forward progress of the client’s matter, significant increase in the cost of the matter or significant harm to the client’s ability to achieve the legal objectives that the lawyer previously agreed to pursue in the representation.
The opinion notes that “a lawyer may be able to remediate these adverse effects and withdraw in a manner that avoids or mitigates the harm that the rule seeks to prevent.” It also provides that the “lawyer’s motivation for withdrawal is not relevant under Model Rule 1.16(b)(1). Therefore, under the model rules, if the lawyer’s withdrawal does not cause ‘material adverse effect’ to the client’s interests in the matter in which the lawyer represents the client, a lawyer may withdraw to be able to accept the representation of a different client, including to avoid the conflict of interest that might otherwise result.”
The opinion concludes that “Ideally, lawyers will exercise care and thoughtfulness in deciding whether to accept an engagement and will generally refrain from ending a relationship without good cause, whether out of a sense of obligation, loyalty to the client or professional pride. But even careful lawyers may occasionally desire to end a representation …”
Two of the 10 members of the standing committee offered a written dissent to Formal Opinion 516 arguing the opinion is incomplete and should have provided additional guidance.
The standing committee periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying ABA model ethics rules to specific issues of legal practice, client-lawyer relationships and judicial behavior. Other recent ABA ethics opinions are available at www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/ethics_opinions.
—————
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/04/aba-issues-formal-opinion-516/https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/04/aba-issues-formal-opinion-516/)
