Source: http://fsmlaw.org/fsm/decisions/vol9/9fsm470a_470d.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:38:31+00:00

Document:
For the Plaintiffs: Amy J. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
For the Defendant: Thomas G. Soucia, Esq.
A court cannot allow defense counsel to withdraw so that the defendant can seek new counsel to resume trial when the trial is well into the defendant's case-in-chief and when that new counsel was not present during trial and has not heard either the prosecution's witnesses' testimony or that of the defense witnesses who have already testified. FSM v. Jano, 9 FSM Intrm. 470a, 470b (Pon. 2000).
Defense counsel cannot, in the middle of a criminal trial, precipitously accept other employment, without making the acceptance of employment conditional, commit himself to begin work "immediately," and then move for withdrawal because defense counsel is under an ethical obligation to continue as counsel until the criminal trial ends, even if that means postponement of his departure for new employment. FSM v. Jano, 9 FSM Intrm. 470a, 470b (Pon. 2000).
When ordered to by a tribunal, defense counsel is ethically obligated to continue the representation even if good cause to withdraw is present. Should the criminal trial end in a conviction, new counsel may be obtained for sentencing. FSM v. Jano, 9 FSM Intrm. 470a, 470b (Pon. 2000).
Denying withdrawal of counsel in the middle of a criminal trial is within the court's discretion, and as long as counsel is providing effective assistance, a criminal defendant has the choice of either continuing with that counsel or representing himself pro se. FSM v. Jano, 9 FSM Intrm. 470a, 470b (Pon. 2000).
This case comes before me on the Motion to Reconsider Motion to Withdraw as Attorney filed July 5, 2000 by the defendant's attorney. The original motion of June 28, 2000 was caused by the attorney's intention to depart Pohnpei on July 13, 2000 to begin other employment in Palau and alleged disagreements with his client on how to proceed further with this case. I denied that motion to withdraw on June 30, 2000.
As noted previously, the trial in this case is far advanced: it is well into the defendant's case-in-chief.
The motion to reconsider my June 30th denial is denied. The trial is too far advanced. I cannot allow defense counsel to withdraw at this stage of the trial so that the defendant can seek new counsel to resume trial when that new counsel was not present during trial and has not heard either the prosecution's witnesses' testimony or that of the defense witnesses who have already testified.
My decision is not limited by the actions of defense counsel, who, in the middle of a criminal trial, precipitously accepted other employment on June 23, 2000, and committed himself to begin work "immediately," and then moved, on June 28, 2000, for withdrawal. Counsel, without qualification, states that he is leaving the Federated States of Micronesia on July 13, 2000. The problem is counsel's own commitment to Palau, apparently.
In my view, defense counsel is under an ethical obligation to continue as counsel until the trial ends, even if that means postponement of his departure for Palau. When ordered to by a tribunal, defense counsel is ethically obligated to continue representation even if good cause to withdraw, which I do not find here, is present. FSM MRPC R. 1.16(c). If the trial should end in a conviction, new counsel may be obtained for sentencing. Otherwise, I can only repeat what I noted in my earlier order.
Denying withdrawal of counsel in the middle of a criminal trial is within my discretion. Meyer v. Sargent, 854 F.2d 1110, 1114 (8th Cir. 1988). As long as counsel is providing effective assistance a criminal defendant has the choice of either continuing with that counsel or representing himself pro se. State v. Pepperling, 582 P.2d 340, 346 (Mont. 1978).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.