' 1-12 Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel.

Purposes of Rule

The requirement that counsel seek leave to withdraw has several purposes, including protecting all parties' rights, monitoring and regulating the practice of the bar before the tribunal, ensuring that adjudication proceeds expeditiously and in an orderly fashion, and protecting the public interest in efficient application of this tribunal's resources. Dep't of Correction v. Lewis, OATH Index No. 1316/95 (May 31, 1995).

Applicability of Rule

An attorney who has appeared pursuant to section 1-11 of these rules may not unilaterally withdraw. However, because not all Loft Law cases are adjudicated before this tribunal, withdrawal of counsel before referral of the case to this tribunal is not governed by this tribunal's rules. Matter of Ancona, OATH Index Nos. 116/96, 621/96, 623/96 (Dec. 8, 1995).

Withdrawal of Counsel

APPLICATIONS DENIED

Where counsel delayed seeking leave to withdraw from representation of the petitioner until too late for the petitioner to retain new counsel in time for trial, the motion to withdraw was denied notwithstanding fee dispute between counsel. Matter of SMJ Management Corp., OATH Index No. 1505/95 (Nov. 21, 1995), aff'd sub nom. SMJ Management Corp. v. New York City Loft Bd., Index No. 103595/96 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Feb. 6, 1997).

Counsel's bare statement that some other attorney, unknown to counsel, had taken over representation of the respondent, is an insufficient basis for granting leave to withdraw from representation of the respondent. Dep't of Correction v. Lewis, OATH Index No. 1316/95 (May 31, 1995).

Absent any mandatory basis for withdrawal of counsel under the Code of Professional Responsibility, and absent any persuasive reason for the respondent's last-minute desire to replace counsel, who had represented him through 15 months of pre-trial proceedings, counsel's application for leave to withdraw was denied. Dep't of Correction v. Rebecca, OATH Index No. 151/94 (Oct. 21, 1993).

PROCEDURE

Having previously appeared in the proceeding by attending the pre-trial conference, counsel must seek permission of the administrative law judge in order to withdraw from representing a party scheduled for a hearing. Matter of Wilson, OATH Index No. 1573/97 (Mar. 20, 1998), aff’d, Loft Bd. Order No. 2280 (Sept. 24, 1998).

Substitution of Counsel

APPLICATIONS DENIED

Counsel for respondent sought to withdraw on the third and final day of trial based solely on respondent’s desire to change counsel. In denying the motion, the administrative law judge found that a simultaneous request to adjourn the proceedings in order for new counsel to prepare demonstrated that substitution would substantially delay the proceedings. The matter had been pending for several months, and more than one month between the second and third day of trial had elapsed. No apparent reason existed that substitution could not have been made earlier so that new counsel would have been ready for the final trial date, or that respondent could have found new counsel who was available on that date. Dep’t of Sanitation v. Garcia, OATH Index No. 1140/98 (May 1, 1998).