In Formal Opinion 516, the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility tackles a common but tricky question: When can a lawyer voluntarily withdraw from representing a client without crossing ethical lines? See ABA Formal Opinion 516 (Apr. 2, 2025).
Model Rule 1.16(b)(1)
Under Model Rule 1.16(b)(1), a lawyer may withdraw only if doing so won’t cause a “material adverse effect” on the client’s interests. The opinion defines this as harm that significantly delays progress in the matter, substantially increases costs, or materially impairs the client’s ability to achieve their legal goals. See Id. at 4. If none of these harms are present—and especially if the lawyer helps transition the matter to successor counsel—then withdrawal is ethically permitted, even if the motivation is personal, professional, or strategic. See Id. at 5-6.
One key clarification: the lawyer’s reason for withdrawing doesn’t matter under 1.16(b)(1). See Id. at 6. That’s a shift from other parts of Rule 1.16, which hinge on good cause. Here, if you can exit cleanly without hurting the client’s matter, the Rules allow it—whether it’s to reduce workload or to take on a new, even adverse, client.
That brings us to the “hot potato” doctrine, a judicially created principle that frowns on dropping one client to sue them on behalf of another. The ABA notes that while courts may still disqualify lawyers under that doctrine to protect client loyalty or public confidence in the profession, Rule 1.16(b)(1) doesn’t incorporate it. The Rules focus on harm to the client’s interests in the specific matter—not on whether the lawyer’s exit looks disloyal. See Id. at 7.
A dissenting voice within the Committee pushed back, arguing that this gloss on 1.16 may encourage lawyers to undervalue client loyalty and overlook the risks of withdrawal for competitive reasons. The dissent also notes the opinion falls short in addressing transactional scenarios and the interplay with mandatory withdrawal rules.
Conclusion
Bottom line: before you withdraw, ask not why you want to leave, but how your departure might affect the client’s interests. If the harm is real and significant, you’re stuck—at least for now. If not, Rule 1.16(b)(1) gives you a green light, even if the optics are less than ideal.
