Was Elaine fired, or did she withdraw voluntarily, or was her removal mandatory? Elaine's exit wasn't exactly "noisy" but it wasn't silent, either. Amber might try to blame Elaine for her trial loss, but the appellate court won't entertain that. There was no requirement to announce it, so what does it mean that they made her termination so public? We'll look at rules setting forth ethical requirements for both mandatory (must) and permissive (may) reasons for a lawyer to terminate representation of a client. What are those requirements, and do we know which one applies here? Finally, we have to give Elaine credit for that very quiet word choice that spoke very loudly in the context of her exit. 00:00 Intro 00:20 Elaine's statement is noteworthy because it doesn't need to be public 01:24 The practical effect of withdrawal is small at this point 02:30 When lawyers can get out vs. when lawyers must get out 04:50 The rules say what the lawyer has to do to hand over the case 06:06 We don't know why she got out, but we can speculate! 09:05 But we can infer from the publicity that it's not a friendly split 10:25 Is Amber dumping Elaine to set up an appeal issue over bad representation? 11:00 The Sixth Amendment sets a different standard for criminal cases 13:51 In civil cases, you bear the consequences of your choice of lawyer 16:30 Your remedy for a bad civil lawyer is a malpractice suit 16:52 Quiet withdrawals vs. noisy withdrawals 18:34 Elaine actually pulled off a pretty smooth diss with her "pledge" 20:00 Next up: What Ballard Spahr told us about the potential appeal issues Appeal Q&A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erj8DJhN_a4 New Lawyers, Same Problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5v6R7Mqbpk