(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law;
(2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. Upon written request by the client, the lawyer shall promptly release to the client or the client’s new lawyer the entire file relating to the matter. The lawyer may retain a copy of the file but shall not condition release over issues relating to the expense of copying the file or for any other reason. The responsibility for the cost of copying shall be determined in an appropriate proceeding.
Background
The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted this rule on January 20, 2004. It became effective on March 1, 2004, and has not been amended since. The ABA amended ABA Rule 1.16 in 2023. As a result, the model rule is substantially different from current Louisiana Rule 1.16.
Paragraph (a): the ABA version imposes a broader, and partly different, mandatory-withdrawal standard. The Louisiana rule’s paragraph (a) simply states the three familiar triggers for mandatory non-representation or withdrawal — a rules or law violation, a physical or mental impairment that materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client, or discharge by the client. The ABA Model Rule, by contrast, opens paragraph (a) with an additional threshold sentence requiring the lawyer to “inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of each representation to determine whether the lawyer may accept or continue the representation” — an affirmative due-diligence obligation that has no counterpart anywhere in the Louisiana rule. The ABA version also adds a fourth mandatory ground, paragraph (a)(4), requiring withdrawal (or declining representation) when “the client or prospective client seeks to use or persists in using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud,” despite the lawyer having already discussed the limits on assisting such conduct under Model Rules 1.2(d) and 1.4(a)(5). Louisiana has no equivalent mandatory ground. Under the Louisiana rule, a client’s persistence in a course of conduct the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, or a client’s past use of the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud, appears only as permissive grounds for withdrawal in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3). However, as a practical matter, Louisiana Rule 1.2(d) still prohibits a lawyer from knowingly assisting a client in conduct that is criminal or fraudulent, and Louisiana Rule 1.16(a)(1) mandates withdrawal when “the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law.”
Paragraphs (b) and (c) are identical in both versions. Every permissive-withdrawal ground in paragraph (b) — voluntary withdrawal without material adverse effect, a client’s criminal or fraudulent course of conduct, past perpetration of crime or fraud through the lawyer’s services, repugnant or fundamentally disputed client instructions, substantial nonpayment or noncooperation after warning, unreasonable financial burden or difficulty, and other good cause — reads the same in both rules, as does paragraph (c)’s requirement to comply with tribunal notice/permission rules and to continue representation if a tribunal so orders.
Paragraph (d): the two rules take different approaches to the lawyer’s file upon termination. Both versions begin identically, requiring the lawyer to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interests on termination — reasonable notice, time to obtain new counsel, surrender of papers and property, and refund of unearned fees or unincurred expenses. The rules diverge at the end of paragraph (d). Louisiana adds a detailed, prescriptive file-turnover regime: upon the client’s written request, the lawyer must promptly release the entire file to the client or the client’s new lawyer, may retain only a copy, may not condition release on copying-expense disputes or any other issue, and must have any dispute over copying costs resolved “in an appropriate proceeding”. The ABA Model Rule instead closes paragraph (d) with a single, more general sentence: “The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.” This leaves the scope of permissible retention (for example, under a state’s retaining-lien doctrine) to be governed by external law rather than spelling out a specific file-release procedure, and it does not address copying costs or dispute resolution at all.
Comments to ABA Model Rule 1.16
Generally
[1] Paragraph (a) imposes an obligation on a lawyer to inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of the representation before accepting it. The obligation imposed by Paragraph (a) continues throughout the representation. A change in the facts and circumstances relating to the representation may trigger a lawyer’s need to make further inquiry and assessment. For example, a client traditionally uses a lawyer to acquire local real estate through the use of domestic limited liability companies, with financing from a local bank. The same client then asks the lawyer to create a multi-tier corporate structure, formed in another state to acquire property in a third jurisdiction, and requests to route the transaction’s funding through the lawyer’s trust account. Another example is when, during the course of a representation, a new party is named or a new entity becomes involved. A lawyer should not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion. Ordinarily, a representation in a matter is completed when the agreed-upon assistance has been concluded. See Rules 1.1, 1.2(c) and 6.5. See also Rule 1.3, Comment [4].
Mandatory Withdrawal
[2] A lawyer ordinarily must decline or withdraw from representation if the client demands that the lawyer engage in conduct that is illegal or violates the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. The lawyer is not obliged to decline or withdraw simply because the client suggests such a course of conduct; a client may make such a suggestion in the hope that a lawyer will not be constrained by a professional obligation. Under paragraph (a)(4), the lawyer’s inquiry into and assessment of the facts and circumstances will be informed by the risk that the client or prospective client seeks to use or persists in using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud. This analysis means that the required level of a lawyer’s inquiry and assessment will vary for each client or prospective client, depending on the nature of the risk posed by each situation. Factors to be considered in determining the level of risk may include: (i) the identity of the client, such as whether the client is a natural person or an entity and, if an entity, the beneficial owners of that entity, (ii) the lawyer’s experience and familiarity with the client, (iii) the nature of the requested legal services, (iv) the relevant jurisdictions involved in the representation (for example, whether a jurisdiction is considered at high risk for money laundering or terrorist financing), and (v) the identities of those depositing into or receiving funds from the lawyer’s client trust account, or any other accounts in which client funds are held. For further guidance assessing risk, see, e.g., as amended or updated, Financial Action Task Force Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for Legal Professionals, the ABA Voluntary Good Practices Guidance for Lawyers to Detect and Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, A Lawyer’s Guide to Detecting and Preventing Money Laundering (a collaborative publication of the International Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, and the U.S. Department of Treasury Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List.
[3] When a lawyer has been appointed to represent a client, withdrawal ordinarily requires approval of the appointing authority. See also Rule 6.2. Similarly, court approval or notice to the court is often required by applicable law before a lawyer withdraws from pending litigation. Difficulty may be encountered if withdrawal is based on the client’s demand that the lawyer engage in unprofessional conduct. The court may request an explanation for the withdrawal, while the lawyer may be bound to keep confidential the facts that would constitute such an explanation. The lawyer’s statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations to both clients and the court under Rules 1.6 and 3.3.
Discharge
[4] A client has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time, with or without cause, subject to liability for payment for the lawyer’s services. Where future dispute about the withdrawal may be anticipated, it may be advisable to prepare a written statement reciting the circumstances.
[5] Whether a client can discharge appointed counsel may depend on applicable law. A client seeking to do so should be given a full explanation of the consequences. These consequences may include a decision by the appointing authority that appointment of successor counsel is unjustified, thus requiring self-representation by the client.
[6] If the client has severely diminished capacity, the client may lack the legal capacity to discharge the lawyer, and in any event the discharge may be seriously adverse to the client’s interests. The lawyer should make a special effort to help the client consider the consequences and may take reasonably necessary protective actions as provided in Rule 1.14.
Optional Withdrawal
[7] A lawyer may withdraw from representation in some circumstances. The lawyer has the option to withdraw if it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client’s interests. Withdrawal is also justified if the client persists in a course of action that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, for a lawyer is not required to be associated with such conduct even if the lawyer does not further it. Withdrawal is also permitted if the lawyer’s services were misused in the past even if that would materially prejudice the client. The lawyer may also withdraw where the client insists on taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.
[8] A lawyer may withdraw if the client refuses to abide by the terms of an agreement relating to the representation, such as an agreement concerning fees or court costs or an agreement limiting the objectives of the representation.
Assisting the Client upon Withdrawal
[9] Even if the lawyer has been unfairly discharged by the client, a lawyer must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences to the client. The lawyer may retain papers as security for a fee only to the extent permitted by law. See Rule 1.15.
Annotations
Generally
This rule is organized as follows: paragraph (a) addresses those circumstances under which a lawyer must terminate representation; paragraph (b) addresses when a lawyer may terminate representation; paragraph (c) addresses when a lawyer must not terminate representation, namely when a tribunal orders the lawyer to continue the representation; and, paragraph (d) addresses a lawyer’s obligations upon termination of the representation.
Under paragraph (a), a lawyer must decline (or terminate) representation if the representation will result in a violation of the ethics rules or the law, if the lawyer’s representation is or would be impaired by a physical or mental condition, if the client discharges the lawyer, or if the client seeks or persists in using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud despite the lawyer’s discussion regarding the limits on the lawyer assisting with the proposed conduct. In re Lagarde, 393 So. 3d 315 (La. 2024) (finding that a lawyer violated Rule 1.16(a) by failing to withdraw from representation when his physical condition materially impaired his ability to communicate with and represent his client). Nevertheless, the lawyer must continue the representation if so ordered by a tribunal.
Under paragraph (b), a lawyer may withdraw from representation at any time if the lawyer can do so without a materially adverse effect on the interests of the client. Furthermore, a lawyer may withdraw, even when doing so would adversely affect the client, if any of the following circumstances exist: the client persists in using the lawyer’s services, or has used the lawyer’s services in the past, in connection with a crime or fraud; the client insists on pursuing a repugnant or imprudent objective; the client has persistently refused to pay the lawyer’s fees or costs; the representation has become an unreasonable financial burden to the lawyer; the client has made the representation unreasonably difficult; or “other good cause for withdrawal exists.” Notwithstanding a basis for permissive withdrawal, the lawyer must continue to represent the client if so ordered by a tribunal.
Under paragraph (c), a lawyer must continue to represent a client when ordered to do so by a tribunal, even though grounds exist for either mandatory or permissive withdrawal. A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw is a matter left to the court’s sound discretion. See WSF, Inc. v. Carter, 803 So. 2d 445, 448 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001); see also Hill v. Tanner, No. 12-369, 2012 WL 4059898, at *6 (E.D. La. Sept. 14, 2012) (denying lawyer’s request to withdraw after disclosure of client’s criminal activity pursuant to Rule 3.3(b)). Note that a lawyer who withdraws with permission of the tribunal under Rule 1.16(c) must also comply with Uniform Rule for Louisiana Courts Rule 9.13. See Berwick v. Berwick, No. CA 15-00507, 2015 WL 8546378, at *10 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2015); see also Jackson v. Fedex Corporated Servs., 165 So. 3d 206, 208 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (holding that rule 9.13 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts and the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to notify client of withdrawal and the status of the case in writing.); In re Hicks, 255 So. 3d 1021 (La. 2018).
Under paragraph (d), once a lawyer has decided to withdraw from an ongoing representation, the lawyer must take whatever steps are necessary to protect the client’s interests. For example, the lawyer must provide the client with reasonable notice and an opportunity to hire substitute counsel. See Antoine v. Anding, Jr., No. 19-240, 2019 WL 5932705 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2019) (holding that notification by mail or telephone representation is sufficient); In re Gaharan, 6 So. 3d 745, 748-49 (La. 2009) (suspending lawyer for failure to inform client and court of the lawyer’s withdrawal from client’s bankruptcy proceeding); see also Blank v. Equisol, L.L.C., No. 2014-CA-1462, 2015 WL 3824835 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. June 18, 2015) (finding that lawyer’s motion to withdraw filed ten months before the trial date was “more than sufficient for [client] to hire new counsel”). Also, a discharged lawyer with a fee lien may not hold a client’s settlement proceeds hostage to further the lawyer’s self-interest. See In re Black, 240 So. 3d 154, 155-56 (La. 2018) (finding lawyer violated rule 1.16 by having in her contract that client must pay fees before lawyer would return files). In In re Williams-Bensaadat, 181 So. 3d 684 (La. 2015), the court suspended a lawyer for refusing to endorse a settlement check in an effort to force a resolution of her fee claim. See In re Collins, 290 So. 3d 173 (La. 2020); In re Hawkins, 341 So. 3d 519, 524 (La. 2022) (disbarring lawyer for abandoning the representation of client and failing to return client’s file); In re White, 355 So. 3d 1085, 1092 (La. 2023) (emphasizing that a lawyer’s conduct merits disbarment because of failing to return a client’s file); See In re Panagoulopoulos, 352 So. 3d 68, 78-79 (La. 2022) (holding that lawyer had demonstrated meaningful period of recovery in full compliance with agreement with Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP)).
Obligation to Return Client File
The lawyer must surrender to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled and refund any fees that have been paid but not yet earned. See, e.g., In re Martin, 393 So. 3d 321 (La. 2024) (finding that a lawyer violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to timely refund an unearned fee after the representation ended); In re Sonnier, 395 So. 3d 850, 858 (La. 2024) (finding lawyer violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to return client files and refund unearned fees upon termination of representation); In re Harris, 245 So. 3d 1027, 1030-31 (La. 2018) (finding that lawyer failed on multiple occasions to return files); In re Guste, 185 So. 3d 740, 741 (La. 2016) (suspending lawyer for failing to return client’s file and refund unearned fees after several other similar disciplinary matters); In re Salinas, 202 So. 3d 163, 164 (La. 2016) (suspending lawyer for failure to return client’s file upon request, among other reasons); In re McNeely, 98 So. 3d 275, 279 (La. 2012) (suspending lawyer for failure to properly withdraw from representation and failure to return client’s file and unearned fee); In re Wharton, 964 So. 2d 311, 315-316 (La. 2007) (disbarring a lawyer for failure to return unearned fees and failure to return a client’s file subsequent to a three-year suspension for similar misconduct); In re Hyman, 958 So. 2d 646, 649 (La. 2007) (disciplining lawyer for failing to return three clients’ files upon termination of representation); In re Bolton, 820 So. 2d 548, 554 (La. 2002) (suspending lawyer for failing to timely return an original will to client); In re Renfroe, 800 So. 2d 371, 373 (La. 2001) (disciplining lawyer under this paragraph for failing to return unearned portion of fee at termination); In re Turnage, 790 So. 2d 620, 623 (La. 2001) (finding violation of Rule 1.16 (d) where lawyer failed to comply with client’s requests for file). The lawyer may not hold the file “hostage” and demand payment of outstanding costs related to the matter or to photocopying the file before turning over the file.
When a lawyer terminates association with a firm, the lawyer has no individual right to retain a copy of a former client’s file—at least when the client originally retained the firm and continues to be represented by the firm and not by the departed lawyer. See Edwin K. Hunter, APC v. Blazier, 203 So. 3d 515, 518 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016) (ordering departed lawyer to return documents of former client to firm and “prohibiting him from retaining copy of any of those documents”).
As to what constitutes “the file,” an ABA formal opinion from the ABA Standing Committee on Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility has clarified what files, papers, and property must be surrendered to the lawyer’s client. See ABA Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 471 (2015). Most jurisdictions, and the Restatement of Law (Third) Governing Lawyers, require a lawyer to surrender the “entire file” of the client—namely, all documents “possessed by the lawyer relating to the representation, unless substantial grounds exist to refuse.” See id. at 3; Restatement (Third) of the L. Governing Lawyers § 46 (Am. L. Inst. 2000). The entire-file approach “assumes that the client has an expansive general right to materials related to the representation and retains that right when the representation ends.” See ABA Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 471 (2015).
Notwithstanding this broad principle, a lawyer need not produce every scrap of paper and every bit of electronic information in the lawyer’s possession relating to a client’s matter. Among other materials, a lawyer typically need not surrender the following:
- materials that would violate a duty of nondisclosure to another person;
- materials containing a lawyer’s assessment of the client;
- materials containing information which, if released, could endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the client or others; and,
- documents reflecting only internal firm communications and assignments.
See id. “Internal” firm documents prepared for administrative purposes could include documents relating to matters such as:
- conflicts checks and potential conflicts of interest;
- the client’s creditworthiness;
- firm personnel or staffing matters; and,
- ethics consultations within the firm or with outside experts.
Id. at 4-6. Such documents are not subject to surrender because they are “generated for internal use primarily for the lawyer’s own purpose in working on the [client’s] matters.” Id. Note, however, that surrendering these types of documents may be necessitated by compelling circumstances, such as to avoid causing harm to the client in ongoing litigation. Id. at 6.
Note that under Civil Code article 3496, “[a]n action by a client against an attorney for the return of papers delivered to him for purposes of a law suit is subject to a liberative prescription of three years. This prescription commences to run from the rendition of a final judgment in the law suit or the termination of the attorney-client relationship.” See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3496.
Disclosing Confidential Information in a Motion to Withdraw
A lawyer who seeks to withdraw from the representation of a client involved in litigation typically must seek permission from the presiding tribunal to do so. Indeed, Louisiana Rule 1.16, governing withdrawal and termination of representation, provides that “a lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation.” See La. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(c). To obtain such permission, a lawyer may sometimes need to disclose the reasons why the court should permit withdrawal, despite the ongoing litigation. Such a disclosure can involve confidential information, such as that the client has violated the law, that the client has failed to pay the lawyer’s invoices, or that the lawyer would have a conflict of interest in continuing the representation. Rule 1.6(b) permits such disclosures to the extent “reasonably necessary” to comply with law or to respond to “allegations” concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client. See La. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.6(b)(5)-(6). However, there are limits as to what a lawyer can and cannot disclose in attempting to withdraw. To balance the client’s interest in confidentiality with the tribunal’s interest in making an informed decision on a motion to withdraw, an ABA formal opinion[1]advises a lawyer seeking to withdraw as counsel of record to do the following:
- First, the lawyer should submit a motion to withdraw that discloses no client information other than, perhaps, a reference to the need to withdraw for “professional considerations.” In addition, the lawyer may disclose the procedural steps taken prior to filing the motion, such as providing notice to the client. The lawyer may also update the court on the procedural status of the litigation. ABA Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 476, at 9 (2016).
- If the court insists on additional information, the lawyer should then “seek to persuade the court to rule on the motion without requiring the disclosure of confidential client information,” and assert “all non-frivolous claims of confidentiality and privilege.” Id.
- If the court still insists on receiving additional information before ruling on the motion to withdraw, then the lawyer should, pursuant to Rule 1.6(b)(5), provide “only such information as is reasonably necessary to satisfy the needs of the court and preferably by whatever restricted means of submission, such as in camera review under seal, or such other procedures designated to minimize disclosure as the court determines is appropriate.” Id.
- Finally, if the court “expressly orders” the lawyer to make full, public disclosure of the otherwise confidential information, then Rule 1.6(b)(6) would permit the disclosure to allow the lawyer “to comply with a court order.” Id.
Mandatory Withdrawal to Avoid Violation of Rules or Law
Paragraph (a) requires a lawyer to withdraw from a representation when continued representation “will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law.” La. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.16(a)(1). To avoid violating Rule 1.16(a), a lawyer should withdraw from an engagement once a lawyer is ineligible to practice. See In re Johnson, 396 So. 3d 953, 957 (La. 2024) (finding that a lawyer violated Rule 1.16(a)(1) by failing to cease representation upon disbarment); In re Burns, 396 So. 3d 441 (La. 2024) (finding lawyer violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to notify client of suspension, failing to withdraw from representation, failing to return the client file, and failing to refund unearned fees after termination of representation); In re Hall, 382 So. 3d 89, 91-93 (La. 2024) (finding a lawyer violated Rule 1.16(c)-(d) by failing to provide notice of termination and failing obligations upon termination of representation); In re Thomas, 115 So. 3d 466, 472 (La. 2013) (finding lawyer’s continued representation while ineligible to practice law violated Rules 1.16(a) and 1.16(d)); In re Polk, 174 So. 3d 1131, 1135 (La. 2015) (imposing discipline for practicing law while ineligible). Note that a lawyer may have additional obligations upon learning that a client has used the lawyer’s services to violate the law.
Mandatory Withdrawal Upon Discharge by Client
A lawyer must withdraw from representing a client once the client has instructed the lawyer to do so. See, e.g., In re Cooper, 23 So. 3d 886 (La. 2009); In re White, 706 So. 2d 964 (La. 1998); Am. Gen. Inv. Corp. v. St. Elmo Lands, 391 So. 2d 570, 573 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980); In re Gilbert, 185 So. 3d 734 (La. 2016). A lawyer designated in a will as the lawyer for the executor must withdraw if directed to do so by the executor. Although Louisiana Revised Statutes section 9:2448 provides that such a lawyer may be discharged only for “just cause,” Louisiana jurisprudence holds that a client’s right to discharge a lawyer at any time nonetheless controls. See Succession of Wallace, 574 So. 2d 348, 355 (La. 1991) (recognizing that Rule 1.16(a)(3) gives “the client the absolute right to fire a lawyer in whom he has lost faith or confidence” and prevails over section 9:2448(b)(2) to preserve the court’s power and responsibility to define and regulate the practice of law).
Disciplinary Sanctions
Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving a lawyer’s duty to withdraw properly from representation: disbarment, when the lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system; suspension, when the lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system; reprimand, when the lawyer negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system; and, admonition, when the lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. See ABA Standards for Imposing Law. Sanctions §§ 7.1-7.4 (1992).
Notes
This page was last updated October 2026.
[1] See ABA Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 476 (2016) (“Confidentiality Issues when Moving to Withdraw for Nonpayment of Fees in Civil Litigation”).