ABA Opinion 516 Clarifies Rules for Attorney Withdrawal

If you’ve ever looked at a case file, looked at your calendar, and then looked back at the case file like it just
asked you to help it move apartments… you already understand why attorney withdrawal rules exist.
Lawyers can’t simply vanish like a magician at the end of a birthday party. But they also aren’t ethically required
to stay in every representation forever, no matter how chaotic things get.

That’s where ABA Formal Opinion 516 comes in. The opinion focuses on a deceptively short phrase in
Model Rule 1.16(b)(1): a lawyer may withdraw if it “can be accomplished without
material adverse effect on the interests of the client. In plain English: you can leave,
but you can’t leave your client holding the bag.

This article breaks down what ABA Opinion 516 says, why it matters, how it intersects with court-driven doctrines
like the “hot potato” rule, and what a smart (and sane) withdrawal plan looks like in real practice.
It’s analysis-heavy, example-rich, and just funny enough to keep you awakebecause legal ethics is thrilling
in the same way a smoke alarm is “exciting.”

What Is ABA Formal Opinion 516?

ABA Formal Opinion 516 provides guidance on permissive withdrawal under
Model Rule 1.16(b)(1), specifically the meaning of “material adverse effect on the interests of the
client.” The opinion also distinguishes ethical permissibility (what the rules allow) from
judicial control (what courts may permit or punish through disqualification, sanctions, or denial of a motion
to withdraw).

The opinion drew extra attention because it discusses whether a lawyer may withdraw from a current client
and then accept a matter adverse to that former clientan issue often discussed under the
“hot potato doctrine”. Importantly, the opinion includes a rare dissent warning that parts of the
analysis could be misunderstood or misused, especially where loyalty concerns loom large.

Quick Refresher: Model Rule 1.16 in Human Language

Model Rule 1.16 is the ethics rulebook’s “break glass in case of relationship trouble” section. It generally covers:

Mandatory withdrawal (you must leave)

• Continuing would violate ethics rules or law
• Your physical/mental condition materially impairs representation
• The client fires you (yes, it happenssometimes via a 2 a.m. email with 14 exclamation points)

Permissive withdrawal (you may leave)

A lawyer may withdraw for certain reasons (nonpayment, unreasonable burden, client misconduct, good cause),
andrelevant heremay withdraw under Rule 1.16(b)(1) if the withdrawal can be accomplished without
material adverse effect on the client’s interests.

Even when you can withdraw, you still have duties

Most versions of Rule 1.16 also require practical protections for the client: notice, time to find new counsel,
surrendering papers/property the client is entitled to, and refunding unearned fees. These duties are not optional,
and they’re the difference between a professional exit and an ethics complaint with a side of malpractice exposure.

The Big Concept: “Material Adverse Effect” (Not Just “This Feels Bad”)

ABA Opinion 516’s headline contribution is clarifying what “material adverse effect” means in the real world.
It’s not about bruised feelings, awkward optics, or a client’s understandable disappointment that their favorite
lawyer is leaving. The standard is about significant harm to the client’s interests in the matter.

Think of it like this: if withdrawal would meaningfully damage the client’s ability to pursue their objectives,
move the matter forward, or manage costs, you’re likely in “material adverse effect” territory.

Three common markers of material adverse effect

Opinion 516 emphasizes that withdrawal is materially adverse when, despite reasonable remediation efforts,
it would likely:

• Significantly impede the forward progress of the matter (missed deadlines, stalled litigation, delayed deals)
• Significantly increase costs (duplicative work, emergency replacement counsel, avoidable motion practice)
• Significantly jeopardize achieving objectives (loss of leverage, lost deal opportunity, procedural harm)

“Material” here doesn’t mean catastrophic. It means substantial enough that a reasonable lawyer would say,
“Yeah, the client is worse off in a serious way because of this timing and these circumstances.”

Scenarios Where Material Adverse Effect Is More Likely

Opinion 516 highlights that withdrawal becomes ethically risky when the client can’t realistically transition without
serious harm. Here are high-risk patterns that show up repeatedly in practice.

1) Withdrawal near a critical deadline

If trial is imminent, discovery is closing, a dispositive motion is due, or a filing deadline is about to hit,
withdrawal often creates major harmeven if the lawyer is exhausted, annoyed, or both.
Courts also tend to be less sympathetic when the timing looks like it creates disruption or gamesmanship.

2) The lawyer has unique knowledge that can’t be transferred quickly

Some matters are “plug-and-play.” Others are “only the person who lived through this case can explain it.”
If you’ve developed deep institutional knowledge (or hold a key relationship, strategy framework, or technical record),
your departure can materially harm progress and increase cost because successor counsel must rebuild.

3) The client has limited access to replacement counsel

In specialized practice areas, rural venues, resource-limited clients, or complex multi-party litigation,
finding competent successor counsel quickly is not guaranteed. If no viable substitute exists within the needed time,
withdrawing may be materially adverse even if you’d like to hand off.

4) Transactional matters where delay kills value

People sometimes assume withdrawal issues are “litigation problems.” Not true. In deals,
timing is oxygen. Delay can cause financing to collapse, counterparties to walk, regulatory windows to close,
or leverage to evaporate. Opinion 516 treats transactional delay as a prime example of potential material harm.

5) A withdrawal that forces massive duplication of work

If a successor attorney must redo substantial workbecause files are disorganized, work product is not transferable,
or the record is messythe client pays twice. That’s a classic “significant cost increase” scenario.

Remediation: The Exit Ramp That Makes Withdrawal Ethical

One of the most practical parts of Opinion 516 is the concept of remediating negative consequences.
The ethics question isn’t just “Will withdrawal hurt?” It’s also “Can the lawyer reasonably reduce or prevent the harm?”

Examples of remediation steps that matter

• Helping identify successor counsel (within confidentiality and conflicts limits)
• Providing an orderly file transfer with clear indexing and key deadlines flagged
• Cooperating with successor counsel during transition (status memos, strategy outlines, key contacts)
• Seeking extensions or adjusted schedules where possible to reduce prejudice
• Reducing or foregoing fees for work that must be duplicated, when appropriate

Think of remediation as ethical “damage control.” If you can’t eliminate serious harm, you may not be able to withdraw
under 1.16(b)(1). But if you can reduce the harm below the “material adverse effect” line, withdrawal can become permissible.

The “Hot Potato” Doctrine: Ethics vs. Courtroom Reality

The hot potato doctrine is a court-created principle that generally disapproves of lawyers dropping a current client
to take a new client whose interests are adverse to the dropped client. It’s about loyalty and public confidence,
and it often shows up in disqualification motions.

Opinion 516 draws a bright distinction: ethical permissibility under Rule 1.16(b)(1) is focused on whether the
withdrawal causes material harm in the matter, not on whether the withdrawal looks disloyal.
In other words, under the Model Rule analysis, a lawyer’s motivation may be irrelevant if the client’s interests in
the matter are not materially harmed.

Butand this is the part that saves lawyers from running off a cliff with confidenceOpinion 516 also recognizes that
courts can apply different standards. Even if a withdrawal technically meets Rule 1.16(b)(1),
a court might still disqualify counsel (or deny withdrawal) based on fairness, loyalty principles, procedural integrity,
or supervisory authority.

Practical takeaway

Passing the ethics test doesn’t guarantee you pass the judge test. Think of Rule 1.16(b)(1) as the minimum ethical floor,
not a “get out of disqualification free” card.

What Opinion 516 Means for Real-World Withdrawal Decisions

Opinion 516 pushes lawyers toward a more structured analysis. Instead of “Do I have a good reason to leave?”
the key questions under 1.16(b)(1) become:

1. What harm will my withdrawal likely cause in this specific matter?
2. Is that harm significant enough to be “material”?
3. What remediation steps can reduce the harm?
4. After remediation, is material adverse effect still likely?
5. Even if ethically permitted, what will the tribunal do?

This framework is particularly useful in high-pressure moments: fee disputes, staffing changes, conflicts concerns,
client demands, or simply a mismatch that makes representation unworkable.

Withdrawal Checklist: A Clean Exit Without Ethics Landmines

If you want the shortest route to a professional, defensible withdrawal, it looks like this:

Step 1: Identify your withdrawal basis (and don’t improvise)

Are you seeking withdrawal under 1.16(b)(1) (no material adverse effect) or another subsection (nonpayment, unreasonable burden,
client misconduct, etc.)? The basis matters because some grounds require warnings or documentation.

Step 2: Map foreseeable prejudice

List deadlines, critical events, and dependency points (hearings, closings, regulatory submissions, expert disclosures).
If the calendar itself screams “DON’T LEAVE NOW,” listen to it.

Step 3: Build a transition plan (the ethics-friendly kind)

• Status memo: what’s happened, what’s next, what’s dangerous
• Deadline list: with dates, rules, and consequences
• File transfer: complete, organized, searchable
• Successor coordination: reasonable cooperation for handoff

Step 4: Communicate clearly (and calmly)

Clients hate surprises. A withdrawal that feels sudden is more likely to trigger grievances, disputes, or allegations
of abandonment. Professional notice, clear explanations (consistent with confidentiality duties), and practical guidance
reduce the temperature fast.

Step 5: If a tribunal is involved, follow the tribunal rules

In many litigated matters, withdrawal requires court permission. And if a judge orders you to stay,
ethics rules typically require you to continue representation (while preserving confidentiality and other obligations).

Step 6: Wrap the financials cleanly

Refund unearned fees, address trust funds appropriately, and avoid “hostage file” behavior.
The fastest way to turn a simple withdrawal into a disciplinary headache is to hold the file over a fee fight.

Examples: What “Material Adverse Effect” Might Look Like

Example A: Withdrawal likely permitted

A lawyer is retained for a discrete task: drafting a contract addendum. The work is completed, the client has copies,
and no pending deadlines exist. The lawyer withdraws before any new phase begins, provides a short status memo,
and offers to answer transition questions for successor counsel. Minimal disruption, minimal cost increase, no objective harm.
That’s a classic low-risk 1.16(b)(1) scenario.

Example B: Withdrawal likely not permitted under 1.16(b)(1)

A lawyer is lead counsel in complex litigation three weeks before trial. Replacement counsel would need months to prepare,
and key evidentiary decisions are imminent. Even a well-organized file transfer won’t prevent significant delay and cost.
Material adverse effect is hard to deny here, and a court is unlikely to approve withdrawal absent extraordinary circumstances.

Example C: Withdrawal might be permitted with remediation

A transactional lawyer wants to withdraw during a deal timeline, but the closing date is flexible and successor counsel is available.
The lawyer creates a detailed closing checklist, flags open issues, provides clean document versions, and coordinates a handoff call.
With remediation, the deal proceeds without significant delay or cost increase. The analysis shifts toward permissibility.

Important Reality Check: State Rules Differ

ABA opinions interpret the Model Rules, but not every jurisdiction adopts the Model Rules as written. Some states have
different withdrawal language or different emphases (for example, focusing on avoiding “reasonably foreseeable prejudice”).
Courts and state bars may also view “hot potato” style withdrawals differently. So, Opinion 516 is guidancenot a universal shield.

The best approach is to use Opinion 516 as a framework, then cross-check your jurisdiction’s rule text, comments, and case law.
Ethical withdrawal is local cuisine: the ingredients overlap, but the spice level varies.

Common Mistakes That Turn Withdrawal Into a Mess

• Waiting too long until the timing becomes inherently prejudicial
• Failing to document warnings, transitions, or client communications
• Dumping a disorganized file and calling it a “transfer”
• Overexplaining to a tribunal and risking confidentiality
• Assuming ethics permission equals court permission
• Turning the fee dispute into a file hostage situation

So What Does Opinion 516 “Clarify,” Exactly?

Opinion 516 clarifies that under Model Rule 1.16(b)(1):

• The key test is material adverse effect on the client’s interests in the matter.
• The effect is “material” when it significantly delays progress, increases cost, or jeopardizes objectives.
• A lawyer’s motivation for withdrawal is generally not part of the 1.16(b)(1) ethics analysis.
• Remediation can matter: lawyers should try to mitigate foreseeable harms.
• Ethics rules are not identical to court disqualification or “hot potato” doctrines; courts may act differently.

If you’re a lawyer, this is the practical value: Opinion 516 provides a clearer way to thinkand documentwithdrawal decisions.
If you’re a client (or future client), this is the reassurance: lawyers may withdraw, but they’re still required to take
reasonable steps to protect you from foreseeable harm.

Real-World Experiences and Lessons From Attorney Withdrawals (Extra )

Withdrawal is one of those topics where the “black letter” ethics rule looks neat on paper, but real life shows up
wearing muddy boots. Lawyers who regularly navigate withdrawals often describe the same recurring lessonsless like
dramatic courtroom speeches and more like professional survival skills.

1) Timing is the quiet boss of every withdrawal decision

In practice, many withdrawal disputes aren’t about whether a lawyer has a “good reason.” They’re about whether the timing
makes the exit unfair or dangerous for the client. Lawyers often learn that the best time to plan a withdrawal is
before the relationship becomes unworkable. If the representation is drifting toward conflict (nonpayment, uncooperative client,
unrealistic demands), experienced attorneys start documenting communications early and look for natural off-ramps:
a completed phase, a resolved motion, a negotiated pause, or a scheduled transition point.

2) A transition memo can prevent ten future problems

Lawyers frequently report that the simplest “experience-based” upgrade is writing a clear transition memo:
what’s been done, what’s pending, what’s risky, and what deadlines cannot be missed. It’s not glamorous work.
No one frames a transition memo. But it reduces the chance that successor counsel repeats work, misses something critical,
or later claims the file transfer was incomplete. It also tends to lower client panic, which is a real factor when clients
feel abandonedeven if the withdrawal is ethically justified.

3) Fee disputes are where withdrawal gets emotionally expensive

Practitioners often mention that fee conflict turns professional judgment into a stress test. Clients may interpret withdrawal
as punishment, and lawyers may feel tempted to “hold the line” by limiting cooperation. The experienced approach is usually:
separate the ethics obligations from the money fight. Provide the file promptly, protect deadlines, and deal with fees through
the proper channels. Lawyers who do this tend to report fewer grievances and fewer escalation spirals.

4) Judges care about case management and fairnesssometimes more than your internal logic

In litigated matters, attorneys often describe withdrawal motions as a “trust exercise” with the tribunal. Even when the ethics
basis is solid, judges may deny withdrawal if it threatens delay, burdens the court, or prejudices the opposing party’s schedule.
Lawyers learn to frame requests around practical solutions: substitution plans, proposed extensions, narrowed scope, or phased
withdrawal where ethically allowed. The goal is to show that withdrawal won’t derail the proceedingsor that staying is truly untenable.

5) “Hot potato” scenarios can be technically ethical and still strategically awful

One of the most common experience-driven cautions is this: even if an analysis under Rule 1.16(b)(1) points toward permissibility,
“dropping a client to take an adverse engagement” can trigger reputational fallout, disqualification risk, and client distrust.
Lawyers who’ve seen these situations up close often recommend a conservative approach: robust conflicts review, written internal analysis,
careful client communication (without oversharing), and serious consideration of whether the short-term business gain outweighs
the long-term risk. Ethics compliance is necessarybut it’s not always sufficient for professional wisdom.

Bottom line: ABA Opinion 516 gives a cleaner framework for thinking about withdrawal. Real experience teaches that the framework
works best when paired with good timing, disciplined documentation, respectful communication, and a transition process that treats
the client’s matter like it mattersbecause it does.

Conclusion

ABA Opinion 516 doesn’t magically make attorney withdrawal “easy.” It makes it clearer.
It reframes permissive withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(b)(1) around a practical, client-impact test:
Will the withdrawal materially harm the client’s interests in the matterthrough delay, cost, or jeopardized objectives
even after reasonable remediation?

The opinion also reminds everyone that legal ethics and courtroom power don’t always march in perfect formation.
You can satisfy an ethical test and still face court denial or disqualificationespecially in “hot potato” flavored disputes.
The smartest withdrawals are the ones that protect the client, respect the tribunal, and leave a paper trail that reads like
professionalism rather than panic.