In Re Kiley, 947 N.E.2d 1

McGibbon entered a contingent fee agreement with the Kiley firm in November 2006 to pursue medical malpractice claims for a percentage of any recovery.
Pamela Swift, an attorney at the Kiley firm, filed suit and appeared for McGibbon in November 2007.
In February 2010 Swift advised she was taking a sabbatical and would not be affiliated with the firm, leaving McGibbon to seek successor counsel.
The client could not secure substitute counsel; Swift moved to withdraw, which the judge initially denied, then later granted after a hearing with McGibbon and defense counsel.
On June 16, 2010, the judge found a valid contingent fee arrangement and ordered the Kiley firm to file an appearance, stating the case was falling behind discovery standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the judge's order to file an appearance by another Kiley firm attorney an abuse of discretion?	McGibbon needed continued representation; discovery was behind schedule.	The firm could withdraw without prejudicing the client; replacement not required.	No; may require another affiliated attorney to file, but not specify which attorney.
Must the individual attorney (Kiley) personally file the appearance?	Kiley personally signed the agreement and could continue representation.	The agreement was between McGibbon and the law firm; another attorney may file.	No; the order cannot require Kiley personally to enter an appearance.
Did the judge abuse discretion in denying withdrawal despite disputed documents and defenses?	McGibbon's documents to opposing counsel could justify withdrawal.	There is no showing of bad faith; continued representation was warranted to avoid material adverse effect.	No; denial within the judge’s discretion given case posture and lack of bad faith evidence.

V.H. v. J.P.H., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 910 (2004) (trial court discretion in attorney withdrawal considerations)
LoCicero v. Hartford Ins. Group, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 339 (1988) (timing of withdrawal and court discretion in absence of successor counsel)
Zabin v. Picciotto, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 141 (2008) (impact on timely and fair adjudication when withdrawing counsel)