Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Ellen Williams (Defendant) CRS# 367385169215 in Department 25

Tentative Ruling - 08/05/2026 Jenna Whitman

The Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Ellen Williams on 07/30/2026 is Denied.

Hanson Bridgett, LLP, Andrew Giacomini et al. (hereinafter collectively “HB”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Ellen Williams. HB seeks withdrawal pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subdivisions (b)(4), permitting a lawyer to withdraw where "the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively," and 1.16(b)(10), permitting withdrawal where "the lawyer believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal."

Giacomini informed Williams on 7/28/2026 of his intent to withdraw and advised her to seek new counsel. She has associated John Fleer in as trial counsel, and Sean SeLegue from the Arnold Porter firm remains associated, for limited purposes.

Trial is only one month hence. As HB’s declaration demonstrates, there are approximately 350 calendar events between now and the start of trial that must be tracked, managed, and addressed. 12 discovery motions are set to be heard by the Discovery Referee on Monday, 8/10/2026, and 6 dispositive motions to be heard on 8/14/2026. All the while, the parties continue to take expert depositions and engage in settlement discussions and prepare for a Mandatory Settlement conference, while they are also preparing and filing numerous trial-related documents as ordered by the undersigned.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD. A total, irremediable breakdown in an attorney client relationship may furnish grounds for permitting withdrawal by counsel, even over the client’s objection. The question is not who caused the breakdown, but the effects the rifs would have on the [client’s] legal representation.” (Est. of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) Without more, a client’s persistent questioning of an attorney’s recommendations, disagreements regarding strategy, or other irksome conduct, although it may be inconvenient, annoying, or even antagonistic, do not necessarily establish a total and irremediable breakdown in the relationship. (See, e.g., Rus, Miliband & Smith v. Conkle & Olesten (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 656, 677; Falco, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at 1020; Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197.)

Even if a total breakdown in the relationship is established, an attorney may not withdraw in a manner that results in prejudice to the client’s case, e.g., withdrawing when the client would not have adequate time, before trial, to procure replacement counsel. (Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) The Court may also consider prejudice to other parties or to the administration of justice. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) Factors the Court should consider include, inter alia, the timing of the motion (vis a vis trial or other important litigation events) (Id.; Vann, supra, at 197); the client’s RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Ellen Williams (Defendant) CRS# 367385169215 in Department 25 ability to obtain substitute counsel (Prince, supra, 405-406); the complexity and stage of the proceedings (People v.

Munoz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 860, 870); and the notice and opportunity given to the client to contest the withdrawal (Prince, supra, at 404).

ANALYSIS. HB has supplied a declaration describing in general terms the circumstances giving rise to this motion, describing attorney-client relationship as “adversarial, combative, and mistrustful,” and asserting that Williams has frequently “attacked” HB’s attorneys and declined to follow their advice, such that HB is no longer able to carry out the representation effectively. Particularly in light of counsel’s duty to avoid disclosing privileged information, counsel’s assertion that they cannot no longer carry out the representation effectively, provided counsel has described the circumstances as completely as possible, may suffice. (See, e.g., Aceves v. Superior Ct. (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 584, 593.)

Williams’ opposition to the motion, however, is supported by her own declaration and those of HB’s co-counsel on this case, John Fleer and Sean SeLegue. The opposition declarations supply additional insight into the nature of the conflicts between Williams and HB and the tools and strategies that are available, and already being employed, to manage the situation. They also provide meaningful information regarding the consequences of granting the motion, including the likely impact on Williams’ ability to prepare for trial and try this case.

Having considered the nature of the relationship, the Court is not inclined to find the requisite total breakdown. While the relationship may be fractious, and there are disagreements as to litigation strategy, Fleer and SeLegue (who have solid working relationships with Williams) have outlined and implemented strategies designed to reduce friction and facilitate HB’s continued participation in preparing Williams’ claims and defenses for trial. The breakdown does not therefore appear to be total or irremediable.

Further, in light of the complexity of these proceedings; the nature and amount of work that must be completed to commence trial timely; facts demonstrating that Fleer and SeLegue cannot reasonably complete all of this work without the involvement and assistance of HB; and the existence of a 5-year deadline, extension of which is opposed by Janco Industries, Inc. (whose claim is the basis for this deadline), precluding any trial continuance; the Court finds that granting this motion would cause substantial prejudice to Williams.

ORDER. The Motion is DENIED. Attorney Fleer is admonished for citing decisions of California Superior Courts, upon which the Court has not relied. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 8.115.)

In light of the late issuance of this tentative ruling, the Court's expectation is that interested parties will appear.

Department 25 is inviting you to a scheduled meeting. Please sign onto Zoomgov.com using credentials below.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Ellen Williams (Defendant) CRS# 367385169215 in Department 25

Meeting ID: 161 8066 1142 Passcode: 5805