A theme that is becoming somewhat popular is that of a Judiciary law 487 claim when counsel moves to be relieved.  Often, the attorney uses stock phrases (refusal to pay expenses, conflict over strategy, inability to communicate) while the plaintiff urges that the attorney is making this up in order to be rid of a troublesome case.  Attorneys have been held in Judiciary Law 487 cases on the basis that the client was actually up to date on payments. 

Here, in Brady v Friedlander  2014 NY Slip Op 06677  Decided on October 2, 2014  Appellate Division, First Department we see that Civil Court’s decision to allow the attorney to withdraw guts the Judiciary law 487 claim. 

"On or about September 30, 2009, defendant moved in Civil Court, New York County (Samuels, J.), to withdraw as counsel in the underlying nonpayment proceedings (see IGS Realty Co., L.P. v James Catering, Inc., 99 AD3d 528 [1st Dept 2012]). Over plaintiffs’ objection, the court granted the motion. Plaintiffs did not appeal from Civil Court’s order. With respect to the cause of action for a violation of Judiciary Law § 487, the instant complaint alleges that defendant provided fabricated grounds in support of his motion, to wit, a conflict with plaintiffs regarding strategy and a lack of trust in defendant’s representation, in order to conceal the true reason, which was an unfounded belief that plaintiffs could or would not pay future legal bills. However, while the parties’ communications as quoted in the complaint reflect that defendant was remarkably concerned with billing, which may have informed his decision to withdraw, the complaint also reflects that plaintiff Brady expressed disagreement with defendant as to strategy and questioned defendant’s honesty and competency, thus providing support for defendant’s stated grounds for the motion (cf. Palmieri v Biggiani, 108 AD3d 604 [2d Dept 2013]).

In granting the motion, over plaintiffs’ objection, Civil Court implicitly determined that defendant had shown "just cause" to be relieved. That issue may not be re-litigated via the instant misrepresentation claim (cf. Hass & Gottlieb v Sook Hi Lee, 11 AD3d 230 [1st Dept 2004]).

"