Final answer:
Mandatory withdrawal in the client-lawyer relationship occurs under conditions such as conflicts of interest and inadequate representation, which are highlighted in Glasser v. United States and Strickland v. Washington cases, respectively. In Padilla v. Kentucky, the requirement for attorneys to advise clients on deportation risks is emphasized.
Step-by-step explanation:
The termination of a client-lawyer relationship, particularly mandatory withdrawal, addresses certain conditions under which a lawyer must cease representing a client. One fundamental principle is outlined in Glasser v. United States, where a conflict of interest requiring mandatory withdrawal can arise from simultaneous representation of codefendants. This violates the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which affirms the right to an attorney.
Furthermore, the Strickland v. Washington case sets forth that for a criminal defendant to claim ineffective assistance of counsel, they must demonstrate two things: that the lawyer's performance was objectively unreasonable and this inadequacy affected the outcome. Similarly, in Padilla v. Kentucky, the Court held that attorneys have an obligation to inform clients about the risk of deportation under certain circumstances, highlighting the level of performance expected of lawyers in providing counsel.