Thank you for you response. Please understand we are not a case law research service because of the cost of such research exceeding the scope of this service. I sincerely apologize.
However, you must prove the withdrawal did not comply with the ethics rules on withdrawing from a case.The Rule Regulating Florida Bar 4-1.16(b) provides:
(b) When withdrawal is allowed. Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists. This rule permits withdrawal from a case even if the interests of the client are adversely affected, provided one of the six grounds is present
If your attorney did not present one of these grounds, he did not have good cause for such a late withdrawal and that is what you argue on appeal. Denial of continuance to find new counsel where counsel withdraws late and client is not able to prepare case at late date is abuse of discretion. See: Citrin v. De Venny, 833 So.2d 871 (Fla. App., 2003) (court held late withdrawal of attorney and client's mental status preventing him from preparing for case was good cause for continuance and court held it was abuse of discretion not to grant such continuance).