Court Opinion

ID: 9696957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:02:15.179971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:28.025707
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring and dissenting opinion:
I concur in the result achieved by Judge Cercone and join that portion of his opinion which determines that the trial court abused its discretion when, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, it denied counsel’s request for leave to withdraw his appearance as counsel for the defendant.
However, I disagree with the conclusion expressed by Judge Cercone, as well as by Judge Olszewski, that Disciplinary Rule 2-110(B) makes it mandatory that a trial court grant permission for counsel to withdraw under the circumstances there enumerated. In my opinion, Rule 2-110(B) has application only to counsel; it was not intended to deprive trial courts of discretion in determining whether to grant or withhold permission to counsel to withdraw under the circumstances of each particular case. Trial courts are governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court; and Pa.R.Crim.P. 302(b) provides that “[cjounsel for a defendant may not withdraw his appearance except by leave of court.” *583This rule vests discretion in trial courts, to be exercised as the “interests of justice” require.
In the instant case, I would hold that the “interests of justice” can better be served by permitting appellant-counsel to withdraw so that the defendant-client can be represented by other counsel whose loyalty will not be impaired by the defendant-client’s inability to pay a substantial fee.