the scheduled trial, Franke advised Raymon of his intention to withdraw, as Raymon’s counsel, for nonpayment of fees and suggested that Raymon should either obtain new counsel or notify the court that he wished to proceed [pro se ]. Thirteen days later, eight days more than the five days mandated by the Maryland Rules of Procedure, Franke filed his motion to withdraw, as well as a certificate that he had so informed Raymon by letter of his intention to -withdraw his representation ... Thus, Franke fully complied with paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 1.16, having established that Raymon had “substantially” failed “to fulfill an obligation” to him and that he ing appellant’s motion to withdraw because client failed to pay over $470,000 in legal fees and expenses). See also Whiting, 187 F.3d 317 (<HOLDING>). Notably, in those instances, there was either
holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing holding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the defendant did not admit to facts demonstrating the required mental state holding that denying counsels motion to withdraw would result in undue hardship because continued representation while honoring clients requests would force counsel to violate ethical obligations holding that counsel would suffer undue hardship if motion to withdraw was not granted because client failed to pay over 120000 in legal fees yet expected continued representation by counsel holding that al though the material sought was work product the party seeking discovery showed that it would not be able to obtain the materials without undue hardship