given Raymon “reasonable warning” of his decision to withdraw as Ray-mon’s counsel. Franke, 207 Md.App. at 691, 55 A.3d 713 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). The circumstances of Franke are inapposite to the case before us, since Mr. Norman did not establish that Ms. Puppolo substantially failed to fulfill obligations owed to him, as contemplated in Franke. To the extent there was a hardship, it was one that Mr. Norman created. Cases where a court determined that a client substantially failed to fulfill an obligation owed to counsel involved situations where the attorney would suffer immense financial hardship or exposure to sanctions for ethical violations, or a significant conflict of interest existed between attorney and client. See Franke, 207 Md.App. 679, 55 A.3d 713 (<HOLDING>); Fidelity, 310 F.3d 537 (reversing an order
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 recognizing minors right to representation by counsel in a law violation proceeding recognizing that although the fourth circuit has not yet addressed the issue partial discharge may be granted to the extent that it would be an undue hardship for the debtor to have to pay that portion of the loan that is to be discharged holding the state courts denial of a motion to substitute retained counsel for appointed counsel to be an unreasonable application of gonzalezlopez because it was not justified by undue delay and the trial court wrongly assumed without questioning the defendant that she could not afford to pay retained counsel 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