Rizack v. Signature Bank, N.A.
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-09641
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rizack v. Signature Bank, Judge Oetken directed counsel to file a corrected withdrawal motion addressing representation, entity counsel, and charging liens.
The order affects the plaintiffs whose representation was identified in the withdrawal motion, their attorneys, and the Gordon Fund, which must have a lawyer if all of its counsel withdraw.
What happened
In Rizack v. Signature Bank, N.A., plaintiffs’ counsel asked to withdraw from representing Dennis Fogarty, Pat Fogarty, the Gordon Fund, Richard Kirshner, and Donald MacRitchie.
The court directed counsel to clarify whether two other attorneys also sought to withdraw, whether any withdrawing lawyer claimed a payment lien, and how the Gordon Fund would be represented. The court stated that an entity cannot proceed without a lawyer.
Judge Oetken ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file a new motion addressing these issues by May 30, 2025. The order did not decide the withdrawal request itself.
The detailed version
- Rizack v. Signature Bank, N.A. · No. 1:18-cv-09641
- James Oetken
- May 21, 2025
Background
On May 20, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel moved for permission to withdraw as attorneys for Dennis Fogarty, Pat Fogarty, the Gordon Fund c/o Dennis Fogarty, Richard Kirshner, and Donald MacRitchie. The motion was submitted by Steven R. Wirth and James W. Christian and stated that all plaintiffs’ attorneys, including Akerman LLP and Cristian Attar, sought permission to withdraw as counsel of record.
Court’s directives
The court did not rule on the withdrawal request. Instead, it directed plaintiffs’ counsel to file a new motion addressing three issues:
- Alan Marshall Pollack and Arnold Mitchell Greene must clarify whether they also seek to withdraw.
- The Gordon Fund, as an entity, cannot appear without a lawyer. If all of its counsel withdraw, it must obtain new counsel or it may not continue in the case.
- Under Local Rule 1.4, any withdrawing attorney must state whether the attorney asserts a charging lien, meaning a claim for payment from a recovery in the case.
The new motion must be filed by May 30, 2025.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a new motion addressing these issues. The opinion does not state that the motion to withdraw was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.