Texas Attorney Prevails in Appeal Over Withdrawal Request

A Texas lawyer who says he would face a conflict of interest if he is compelled to continue representing a client successfully argued that his withdrawal bid has remained pending for an unreasonable period of time.

Michael E. Robinson of The Robinson Law Firm serves as counsel of record to Deylan Walker, the plaintiff in an underlying defamation suit. Robinson attempted to withdraw as Walker’s counsel in the trial court in October 2021, saying there were irreconcilable differences between the two. In a later filing, Robinson said conflicts between he and his client prevent continued representation.

In June, Robinson filed a petition for writ of mandamus to a Texas court of appeal regarding the trial court’s failure to rule on the bid for withdrawal. He said the lower court failed to act for an unreasonable amount of time, and that he needed to withdraw to properly defend himself from allegations brought against him by his client.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas division, sided with Robinson Sept. 23, saying there are no “special docket conditions or other matters that might have prevented the trial judge from ruling on the motion to withdraw.”

The appeals court refused to adopt a bright-line rule on the time to act on a withdrawal request, but said that, based on the facts, 10 months from filing the motion to withdraw and six months from the trial court’s hearing of the motion without ruling is “an unreasonable time warranting mandamus relief.”

Without ruling on the merits of the motion, the appeals court said the trial court must make a ruling one way or the other. The appeals court said it is confident the lower judge will comply.

Justice Bill Pedersen III wrote the opinion, in which Justices Ken Molberg and Dennise Garcia joined.

The case is In Re: Michael E. Robinson and The Robinson Law Firm, Tex. App., No. 05-22-00579-CV, 9/23/22.