The opinion of the court was delivered by: Esther Salas United States Magistrate Judge
THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon motion of William L. Handler, Esq., counsel of record for Plaintiff Euro Classics, Inc., to withdraw as counsel in this matter pursuant to L. Civ. R. 102.1; and Mr. Handler representing to the Court that he seeks to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that Plaintiff does not wish to "pursue its affirmative claim as set forth in the complaint or any longer defend the claim which has been put forth by the defendant (Handler Cert. ¶ 3, Docket Entry # 25); and the Court having considered the Handler Certification and the accompanying papers thereto; and no opposition having been received; and
THE COURT NOTING that L. Civ. R. 102.1 provides that, "[u]nless other counsel is substituted, no attorney may withdraw an appearance except by leave of Court." Furthermore, the decision of whether to permit counsel to withdraw is left to the sound discretion of the court. Rusinow v. Kamara, 920 F. Supp. 69, 71 (D.N.J. 1996); and
THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b) permits an attorney to withdraw from representing a client if:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetuate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) other good cause shown for withdrawal exists.
RPC 1.16(b); see also Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 814 F.Supp. 414, 422 (D.N.J. 1993); and
THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that even if counsel seeking to withdraw demonstrates good cause as defined in RPC 1.16(b), a decision with respect to withdrawal remains entirely within the discretion of the Court. RPC 1.16(c); see also Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 814 F.Supp. 414, 422 (D.N.J. 1993) (finding that RPC 1.16(c), "provides that withdrawal is entirely within the discretion of the court and a court may refuse to allow withdrawal despite a showing of good cause'); and
THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that the following factors shall be considered in conjunction with a motion for withdrawal: "(1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought, (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to litigants, (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice, and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case." Haines, 814 F.Supp. at 423; accord U.S. ex. ...