Opinion ID: 880563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligent Withdrawal of Counsel

Text: Appellant contends that the defendants negligently withdrew from their representation of appellant. This contention is fatally flawed, however, in light of the fact that no representation existed. Appellant asserts that this case involved a collection action and that the defendants were obligated to pursue the collection action to a conclusion once they accepted representation. 7 Am.Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law, § 211. This contention ignores the fact that the appellant himself forestalled the foreclosure of the mechanic's lien. Mr. Lorash acknowledges he did not intend to foreclose the lien except as a last resort. Further, he did not communicate a desire to foreclose the lien until he was notified that Mr. Standish was in bankruptcy. As Mr. Lorash had been informed of the two year statute of limitations which applied to the mechanic's lien, and was the party who forestalled its foreclosure, we find the defendants did not have a duty to foreclose the mechanic's lien. Further, representation had been terminated as to the mechanic's lien, pending further action on Mr. Lorash's part, and there could not be a negligent withdrawal. Having found that no duty existed for the defendants to foreclose the mechanic's lien, the parties' arguments whether or not the mechanic's lien involved in this case was valid and enforceable become moot. The decision of the District Court is affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and HUNT, WEBER and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur.