Shapero v. Fliegel

In Shapero v. Fliegel (1987) 191 Cal. App. 3d 842, the facts showed that (1) the attorney had "called appellant and told her to get another lawyer"; (2) the attorney "followed up with a letter that said, in essence, he would do no further work on her behalf . . . ."; (3) the client wrote back characterizing the attorney as negligent and his fees as excessive, acknowledging that he had told her to " 'get another attorney,' " referring to herself as " 'without counsel' " and offering to testify on her ex-husband's behalf against the attorney; (4) in two later telephone calls from the client to the attorney, the attorney had refused assistance to the client, and she acknowledged that on those occasions the attorney was "still angry over his unpaid fees and not very nice to her." ( Id. at p. 845.) It was under these circumstances that the court held a formal withdrawal to be unnecessary. Although the Shapero court found the statutory period to have begun without the attorney filing a formal withdrawal, the court commented, "Nonetheless, a formal withdrawal would certainly be helpful in determining at what point the attorney- client relationship ended. It would seem to be the better practice for the attorney to obtain such a withdrawal when there has been an irreparable breakdown of that relationship." ( Id. at p. 847, fn.6.) Moreover, the Shapero court made its ruling in the context of a specialized statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 285.1, permitting withdrawal of domestic relations attorneys. ( Shapero, supra, 191 Cal. App. 3d at p. 847.) That case holds that "failure to formally withdraw as attorney of record, standing alone, will not toll the statute of limitations under the rubric of continuing representation." (Ibid.)