Can a defendant delay litigation by firing their attorney? One course of action a debtor may take is to hire and then fire multiple attorneys or act in a way that forces their attorney to make an application to be relieved as counsel. Though these actions can lead to delays, they can also have financial consequences.
In New York, an attorney can ask the court to remove them from a case through an Order to Show Cause with a stay of the case. Orders typically include the attorney’s reasoning, with most citing an “irretrievable breakdown of communication” with their client. The client usually has the opportunity to oppose the motion on the day it is heard. In most cases, the court will grant the motion. The court will also stay the case for a set time, typically 30 days after the relieved attorney sends notice of their removal to the client. The matter is stayed until the debtor retains new counsel, or until after 30 days when the plaintiff makes a motion for a default.
An attorney’s application to be relieved as counsel can delay the case from proceeding for a considerable amount of time. A litigant who is aware of this time-consuming process may attempt to hire and fire multiple attorneys simply by not communicating with counsel with the sole hope of multiple extended delays of the case. However, there are protections to prevent a litigant from unreasonably delaying the court process in this way. Under the New York rules, a court in a civil action can award reasonable attorneys’ fees as a result of the opposing party’s frivolous conduct. Conduct is considered frivolous if:
- It is completely meritless
- It is done to delay or prolong the litigation
- It harasses or injures another party
If multiple attorneys for a litigant make motions to be relieved as counsel due to a breakdown in communication with the same litigant, then it is very likely that the court would sanction said litigant for engaging in frivolous conduct for the sole purpose of delaying the case. The litigant’s adversary would be awarded attorneys fees for the unnecessary delay, most likely ordering the case to proceed at a faster rate.
Therefore, you should not attempt to exploit court processes for purposes of intentionally delaying the case or you run the risk of court-ordered sanctions.
If you have questions about a debt collection matter, contact Frank, Frank, Goldstein and Nager for a consultation. We have the experience that pays.
