NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF JUSTIN D. GRAHAM AND CULVER LAW GROUP TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF IN THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

ROBERT KWAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Pending before the court is the motion of Justin D. Graham and Culver Law Group to Withdraw as Plaintiff's Counsel of Record ("Motion"), Electronic Filing Numbers ("ECF") 273, filed on December 29, 2016. The Motion came on for hearing before the undersigned United States Bankruptcy Judge on February 14, 2017 and April 26, 2017. Justin D. Graham, of Culver Law Group, appeared on behalf of himself and Culver Law Group ("Movants") and Plaintiff James L. Clark ("Plaintiff") appeared for himself. The court took the Motion under submission after the hearing on April 26, 2017, stating at the hearing on April 26, 2017 that it wanted to think about the matter and issue a ruling on the matter without setting any further hearing.

By the Motion, Movants seek to permissibly withdraw as Plaintiff's attorney of record based on California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) and (f). Plaintiff filed written oppositions to the Motion. ECF 280, 298, 299 and 300.

Having considered the moving and opposing papers and the arguments of the parties, the court grants the Motion.

Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a California attorney, such as Movant Graham, may permissively withdraw if the client "by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the [attorney] to carry out the employment effectively." See also, Vapnek, Tuft, Peck and Weiner, California Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility, ¶¶ 10:45-10:46 (online ed. August 2016 update), citing, Estate of Falco v. Decker, 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014 (1987). The court determines that the evidence before it establishes that Plaintiff has made it unreasonably difficult for Movants to carry out the employment effectively as indicated by various hostile and disparaging statements of Plaintiff about Movants, including specifically stating in open court on February 14, 2017, that Movant Graham was a liar, and in his written opposition to the Motion filed on March 7, 2017 that he "is untruthful and is a liar," that he "flout[s] the statutes on attorney conduct", that "[h]is conduct is unbecoming and heinous of an attorney," and that he "mishandl[ed] the file." Digital Recording of Hearing on February 14, 2017 at 2:42-2:43 p.m.; Opposition, ECF 298, filed on March 7, 2017, at 6-8. Movants also stated that Plaintiff filed papers in this adversary proceeding, namely, a dispositive motion for summary judgment, during the representation without consulting them, which they argue undermines their ability to effectively represent Plaintiff in this adversary proceeding in that the positions asserted therein are not recommended by them. These facts indicate that the attorney-client relationship between Movants and Plaintiff is strained, to say the least, and it appears that Movants have adequately showed that it is unreasonably difficult for them to effectively represent Plaintiff in this adversary proceeding if Plaintiff has and continues to make hostile and disparaging remarks about them and their representation.

Movants also argue that they should be allowed to permissively withdraw on grounds that Plaintiff "breached an agreement or obligation to the [attorney] as to expenses or fees" pursuant to California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(f), but the court does not rely on this ground for insufficient evidence because Movants did not provide the court with any written fee agreements or billing statements with time entries to demonstrate the time spent by Movants on the case have not been properly compensated pursuant to any such agreements.

Accordingly, the court grants Movants to withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel of record in this adversary proceeding, and Movants are excused from further representation of Plaintiff in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.