Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

W who had been previously represented by other counsel, retained P to represent her in a divorce action against her husband, Bernard Kriegsman (H). P requested and received consent to substitution of attorneys from W's former attorney. W then paid an initial retainer of $1,000, plus $60 in court costs, with the understanding that she would be responsible for additional fees and expenses as litigation progressed. In March 1976 W paid another $1,000, plus $44 which was to be applied against costs. An unusual amount of work was required P because H appeared pro se, was completely uncooperative, and had refused to comply with some of the orders entered by the court. P alleged that it had spent 110 hours on W's case, billed at $7,354.50, and had incurred disbursements of approximately $242. W was on welfare and since she apparently did not have sufficient funds to pay the additional fees incurred, P contended that they were entitled to be relieved from further representation. W opposed the application claiming the file was very thick and to find another attorney with a trial date pending as it was, would be very prejudicial to W. W also said when she first spoke to Mr. Rose, he knew exactly my circumstances. He knew that there were very few assets in the marriage. He knew that I would have to borrow money from relatives to pay the thousand-dollar retainer fee that they asked for. They knew that H was going to represent himself, which would be a difficult situation. They also knew that he had done certain bizarre things, such as sending letters to people, and doing strange things; so, therefore, we might expect a difficult case from him. P consented to take my case. The judge denied the application and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.