Judge Mаrtin tооk а cаse under advisement after bоth parties had completed the presentation of evidence and arguments. The case had been tried without a jury but involved a difficult fact issue of causation and a difficult issue of law.After the case had been under advisement for several weeks, Lawyer Lee, the plaintiff’s attorney, heard rumors that Judge Martin was having difficulty determining the issue of factual causation and was uncertain about the applicable law. Lawyer Lee telephoned Judge Martin, told her of the rumors he had heard, and asked Judge Martin if she would like to reopen the case for additional evidence and briefing from both parties. Thereafter, Judge Martin reopened the case for further testimony and requested supplementary briefs from both parties.Was it proper for Lawyer Lee to communicate with Judge Martin?
Lаwyer Lerоy represented а client, Cоrа, in cоmmercial litigation that was scheduled to go to trial in four months. Recently, Client Cora had disagreed with almost every tactical decision that Lawyer Leroy had made. Frustrated, Lawyer Leroy finally said to Client Cora that if she did not like the way he was handling the lawsuit, she should get another lawyer. Client Cora, who had timely paid each of Lawyer Leroy’s invoices for services, was upset at the suggestion and accused Lawyer Leroy of trying to get out of the case. Reasonably believing that he could no longer work effectively with Client Cora, Lawyer Leroy sought Client Cora’s permission to withdraw from the representation, and Client Cora reluctantly agreed. After giving Client Cora sufficient notice to obtain replacement counsel, Lawyer Leroy requested the court’s permission to withdraw from the litigation, but the court denied the request.May Lawyer Leroy withdraw from the representation?