Commonwealth v. Magee
177 A.3d 315
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Brian Magee was charged with home-improvement fraud and theft; three consolidated cases; remained in custody pending trial.
- Magee retained Schindler Law Group in October 2015 under a flat-fee engagement letter that Schindler says excluded trial representation and required an additional trial fee.
- Schindler obtained multiple continuances for document-intensive preparation and secured a bail modification to allow Magee to assist with review; trial was specially listed to begin October 31, 2016.
- Two weeks before trial, Schindler moved to withdraw, citing partial nonpayment and Magee’s inability to pay additional trial fees; Schindler asserted it had warned Magee it would withdraw if unpaid.
- At the withdrawal hearing Magee said he did not oppose withdrawal but had not retained replacement counsel or shown how he would pay; Commonwealth opposed withdrawal because it would prejudice its trial readiness.
- Trial court denied Schindler’s motion to withdraw as untimely and prejudicial given the special listing and prior continuances; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Schindler’s Argument | Commonwealth’s / Magee’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether order denying motion to withdraw is immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 313 | Order is collateral and appealable because counsel’s right to withdraw would be lost if review postponed | Order is appealable; immediate review appropriate | Yes — collateral order; Superior Court has jurisdiction |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying withdrawal based on client nonpayment | Withdrawal appropriate: client agreed, engagement excluded trial, client unable/unwilling to pay, withdrawal would cause only slight delay | Denial appropriate: motion filed two weeks before specially listed trial after many continuances; Commonwealth ready; prejudice and delay | No abuse of discretion — denial affirmed |
| Whether counsel gave reasonable notice to client and minimized prejudice | Counsel claims it warned client and expected plea or payment; client purportedly did not oppose withdrawal | Trial court found counsel did not show when/what notice was given; client had not secured replacement and could not pay | Findings supported; counsel failed to show adequate notice or steps to mitigate prejudice |
| Weight of competing interests (attorney’s right to fees vs. efficient administration and defendant’s right to counsel) | Emphasizes attorney’s right to be paid and prior case law where withdrawal allowed for nonpayment | Emphasizes administration of justice, prejudice to Commonwealth and defendant if last-minute withdrawal allowed | Balanced for trial court: attorney’s interest insufficient here given timing and prejudice; denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Pennsylvania R.R., 255 A.2d 554 (Pa. 1969) (order denying attorney’s motion to withdraw was immediately appealable under pre-1992 law)
- K.C. v. L.A., 128 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2015) (elements of collateral-order doctrine under Pa.R.A.P. 313)
- Commonwealth v. Wells, 719 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1998) (denial of withdrawal for conflict of interest not appealable as collateral order because claim could be reviewed later)
- Commonwealth v. Sweeney, 533 A.2d 473 (Pa. Super. 1987) (trial court abused discretion in denying withdrawal where court failed to consider economic inability to continue representation)
- Commonwealth v. Scheps, 523 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 1987) (panel found withdrawal appropriate for nonpayment in certain circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Roman, 549 A.2d 1320 (Pa. Super. 1988) (attorney permitted to withdraw for client’s breach of fee agreement where prejudice was minimized)
- Reading Group Two Props., Inc. v. Commonwealth, 922 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (denial of attorney withdrawal for nonpayment is collateral and immediately appealable)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 715 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 1998) (trial court abused discretion in granting last-minute withdrawal where client was left without counsel)