Don Sanford v. Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4586

Maid‑Rite Corporation and two executives were sued in 2013 by current and former franchisees alleging misrepresentations about profitability; alleged losses exceeded $4 million.
Defendants retained law firm Larkin in Sept. 2014 under an engagement letter requiring monthly invoices payable on receipt and reserving the right to withdraw for nonpayment or lack of cooperation.
Defendants paid one invoice (Sept. 2014) but failed to pay subsequent invoices and repeatedly withheld information Larkin needed for the defense.
Larkin warned defendants repeatedly and moved to withdraw on Jan. 28, 2015—over six months before close of discovery and more than a year before the earliest trial date; the district court denied the motion and Larkin appealed interlocutorily.
The magistrate judge stayed discovery while the district court considered the motion; the Eighth Circuit granted review and a stay pending appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of counsel's motion to withdraw is immediately appealable under Cohen	Order is final under Cohen because it conclusively determines counsel’s obligation and is separable from merits	Denial is interlocutory and should await final judgment	Reversed: denial fits Cohen factors and is appealable interlocutorily
Whether Larkin satisfied local and professional conduct rules to withdraw for nonpayment and lack of cooperation	Larkin properly complied: engagement letter, repeated warnings, notice of motion; nonpayment and withheld information justify withdrawal	District court cited lack of substitute counsel and potential delay as reasons to deny withdrawal	Held that Larkin met Minnesota Rules (1.16(b)(5)–(7)) and Local Rule requirements; withdrawal presumptively appropriate
Whether withdrawal would severely prejudice client or third parties (licensing of presumption)	Prejudice argument: withdrawal would leave defendants without counsel and could delay case	Larkin argued notice was timely (weeks before filing), no imminent deadlines, and plaintiffs did not oppose; no evidence of severe third‑party prejudice	Held no severe prejudice: timing allowed replacement counsel; plaintiffs not prejudiced; presumption in favor of withdrawal stands
Standard of review for denial of withdrawal	—	—	Denial reviewed for abuse of discretion (Allen v. United States)

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (establishes narrow final‑decision exception for interlocutory appeals)
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1978) (articulates three‑part test for Cohen exception)
Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1999) (denial of counsel withdrawal is separable from merits and appealable)
Brandon v. Blech, 560 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2009) (nonpayment and lack of cooperation supply good cause for withdrawal; presumption in favor of withdrawal)
Ohntrup v. Makina Ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2014) (denial of withdrawal may be appealed interlocutorily)
Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Intercounty Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2002) (withdrawing counsel must avoid coercive last‑minute demands; prejudice analysis to third parties)
Allen v. United States, 590 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for withdrawal denials)