In Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., (Del. Supr., May 9, 2007), read opinion here,  the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that the Chancery Court could not require an attorney to submit a "non-withdrawable entry of appearance". Though the high court was understanding of the trial court’s frustration with the incredible torpor with which this case was prosecuted (or not prosecuted), and the long history of this case was replete with reasons why the trial court did not want to allow more delay due to attorneys withdrawing, the Supreme Court cited the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct that require an attorney to withdraw in certain circumstances. Citations in the opinion to prior decisions of the Supreme Court highlight that in the many years that this case has been litigated, the merits have not been addressed. The initial claims involved a minority shareholder making claims against the majority shareholder, but due to arbitration claims in Sweden, and a stay of the litigation in the meantime, and withdraw of prior counsel, the merits have not been litigated. The case was remanded with instructions to allow an entry of appearance without ruling in advance on any possible, future motions to withdraw of counsel.

UPDATE: On May 17, 2007, the court issued a revised opinion here.