Lawyer withdrawals and adjournments : Balancing Professional Rights and the Interests of Justice

We’ve all seen it happen in high-profile trials or standard courtroom disputes: a lawyer steps up, clears their throat, and announces, "My Lord, I wish to withdraw my representation from this case.", and goes on to move a motion to do so.

Sometimes, the judge grants the request. But on a few notable occasions recently, judges have given a blatant, resounding "NO." Were the courts right to reject these requests? Can a lawyer really be forced to keep representing a client they want to drop?

To understand why judges do this, we have to look at the delicate balancing act between a lawyer’s professional rights and the grander interests of justice.

A Legal "Breakup"

In an ideal world, court proceedings move steadily toward a resolution. But two occurrences frequently slam the brakes on this momentum: lawyer withdrawals and applications for adjournment.

A lawyer might want to withdraw for perfectly valid reasons. Perhaps the client hasn't honored their financial agreement (unpaid fees), completely refuses to follow professional legal advice, creates a sudden conflict of interest, or has made continued representation ethically impossible. Sometimes, the relationship has simply suffered a total breakdown.

But how should a lawyer break things off? Definitely not by a public announcement on radio, TV, or social media!

Under Ghanaian law specifically Order 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47) there is a strict, structured protocol for changing representation.

1. If the Client Wants to Change Lawyers:

A litigant has the absolute right to change counsel. To do this lawfully, they must file a formal Notice of Change of Solicitor at the court registry and serve a copy to their former lawyer. They can also file in addition a notice stating their intention to act in person (represent themselves).

2. If the Lawyer Wants to Quit:

A lawyer cannot just stand up in court and declare they are done. Doing so is a major red flag. Instead, they must follow a strict three-step process:

• File a Formal Motion: Pursuant to the rules, the lawyer must file a Motion on Notice seeking "leave" (the court's permission) to withdraw. This must be backed by an Affidavit in Support, detailing the exact reasons for wanting out (e.g., lack of instructions, unpaid fees).
• Serve the Parties: This motion must be formally served on both the client and the opposing parties. If a lawyer fails to serve their client, the court can and often will refuse the withdrawal outright.
• Wait for the Ruling: The presiding judge reviews the reasons. If granted, the court officially discharges the lawyer from the record.

The Golden Rule: Lawyers owe a duty to their clients, but they also owe a supreme duty to the court. Once proceedings have started, you cannot simply abandon ship without regard for the wreckage left behind.

The Adjournment Domino Effect

When a lawyer successfully withdraws, it triggers an immediate domino effect: the need for an adjournment (postponing the case). A party suddenly left without legal counsel needs time to find a new lawyer and get them up to speed.

This places judges in a tough spot, forcing them to balance two competing priorities:The right to a fair hearing and the need for efficiency.

Adjournments are not inherently bad; they serve a vital purpose. Genuinely unexpected events like a sudden illness, a missing key witness, or the late disclosure of critical documents mean a postponement is the only way to ensure fairness.

Yet, the abuse of adjournments remains a persistent challenge. We all know the old maxim: Justice delayed is justice denied. Repeated postponements drive up litigation costs, inconvenience witnesses, prolong anxiety for the parties involved, and congest the court system.

When "I Withdraw" is Just "The Strategy"

Let’s just be honest here ,  in the theater of the courtroom, withdrawals and successive applications for adjournment are sometimes used as "The Strategy." It can be a calculated move to stall a trial, frustrate the opposing side, or buy time when a party is cornered.

This is exactly why in recent times,  judges are heavily scrutinizing these requests. If a judge senses that a lawyer's sudden urge to withdraw or a client's sudden decision to fire their counsel is just a tactical ploy to derail the trial, the court will prioritize the integrity of the judicial process and order the case to proceed.

A Shared Responsibility

The administration of justice works best when everyone plays their part:

• Lawyers have a professional responsibility to prepare cases thoroughly and communicate early to minimize disruptions.
• Litigants need to maintain open communication, provide instructions promptly, and honor their financial obligations to avoid forcing their counsel's hand.
• Courts must protect the rights of the individual while ensuring that the wheels of justice keep turning.

Ultimately, neither the right of a lawyer to walk away nor the power of the court to pause proceedings should be used to undermine the timely resolution of a dispute. Cases should be decided on their actual merits not delayed by avoidable interruptions.