Business Architecture Guild v. Lambert
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-00944
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Business Architecture Guild v. Lambert, Judge Freeman granted defense counsel’s renewed request to withdraw after counsel supplied the required legal support and evidence.
Eric Menhart and the defendants he represented were directly affected because the court granted Menhart’s renewed motion to withdraw as counsel. The opinion also addressed Menhart’s conduct in the proceeding.
What happened
In Business Architecture Guild v. Lambert, defense attorney Eric Menhart asked to withdraw from representing the defendants. The court said his renewed motion cited the correct legal standard and included supporting evidence, so it complied with the court’s local rules.
The court also criticized Menhart for describing his unpaid work using the term “slavery” and for threatening appellate action if the withdrawal request was not granted. The court said the language was offensive and that ultimatums could not be used to intimidate or manipulate court proceedings.
Judge Freeman granted the renewed motion to withdraw as counsel. The court also noted that Menhart had timely filed a thorough opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award after the court reminded him of the filing deadline.
The detailed version
- Business Architecture Guild v. Lambert · No. 5:23-cv-00944
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 13, 2024
Background
The court considered a renewed motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Eric Menhart, counsel for the defendants. The court stated that Menhart’s renewed motion cited the correct legal standard and provided evidentiary support. It therefore complied with the applicable local rules and professional-conduct standards.
Court’s concerns
The court objected to Menhart’s use of the term “slavery” to describe his unpaid work on the defendants’ opposition to Business Architecture Guild’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. The court said that description was inflammatory and deeply offensive and characterized the matter as part of Menhart’s professional responsibility. The court also said that the situation was largely caused by Menhart’s own actions. Although his original withdrawal motion was set for a hearing after the opposition deadline, he did not request an extension. After the court reminded him to file a timely and thorough response, he filed the opposition on time.
The court further addressed Menhart’s repeated demands that it grant the withdrawal request, including statements threatening an appeal if the renewed motion was not granted by a specified deadline. The court said it respected the parties’ right to appeal but would not accept attempts to intimidate or manipulate judicial proceedings through ultimatums.
Ruling
The court granted the Renewed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The opinion does not decide the merits of the motion to confirm the arbitration award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.