FRHUEB, INC. -against- THIAGO SABINO DE FREITAS ABDALA and PRISCILA PATTO
- Garnett
- 1:21-cv-07395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In FRHUEB, Inc. v. Thiago Abdala, Judge Garnett granted Dentons’ withdrawal motion and fixed a charging lien, deferring its amount.
Dentons may withdraw from representing Thiago Abdala and Priscila Patto and may assert a charging lien against any recovery in the case. Ms. Patto must address her representation or the remaining counterclaim by December 16, 2025 if she has not obtained new counsel.
What happened
In FRHUEB, INC. v. THIAGO SABINO DE FREITAS ABDALA and PRISCILA PATTO, Dentons asked to stop representing the defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs. The firm cited unpaid fees and an irreconcilable conflict with its clients.
The court found those reasons sufficient. Although the request came weeks before trial, the trial had already been postponed, so the court found that withdrawal would not cause significant harm or prevent adequate preparation by Ms. Patto and any new lawyer.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted Dentons’ motion to withdraw and granted its request for a charging lien on any recovery in the case. The court deferred deciding the lien’s amount until Ms. Patto’s recovery, if any, is finally determined.
The detailed version
- FRHUEB, INC. -against- THIAGO SABINO DE FREITAS ABDALA and PRISCILA PATTO · No. 1:21-cv-07395
- Garnett
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Daniel A. Schnapp and Mary Kate Brennan, together referred to as Dentons, moved to withdraw as attorneys for defendants-counterclaim plaintiffs Thiago Abdala and Priscila Patto. Ms. Patto was the counterclaim plaintiff for the only remaining cause of action, which had been scheduled for trial on September 16, 2025.
Dentons moved to withdraw on August 26, 2025. After an emergency conference, the court postponed the trial and related deadlines. The court also gave Ms. Patto an opportunity to object to the withdrawal, including through a video conference held on September 2, 2025. The court delayed its ruling while the parties pursued settlement discussions. On October 3, 2025, Dentons renewed its request, stating that more than 40 days had passed without an indication that settlement was likely.
Withdrawal of Counsel
Local Civil Rule 1.4 requires a court order before an attorney who has appeared for a party may withdraw. The court considered the reasons for withdrawal and the effect of withdrawal on the proceeding’s timing.
Dentons identified unpaid fees and an “irreconcilable conflict between attorney and client” as its reasons. Ms. Patto did not dispute the alleged nonpayment. Based on its observations during the September 2 conference, the court also found that an irreconcilable conflict existed between Ms. Patto and her husband, on one hand, and Dentons, on the other.
Although withdrawal was requested shortly before the scheduled trial, the court had already postponed the trial with both parties’ consent. The court therefore found that neither party would suffer significant harm from a short delay and that Ms. Patto and any new counsel would have enough time to prepare for trial.
Charging Lien
Dentons also asserted a charging lien. A charging lien is a lawyer’s legal claim to payment from a client’s recovery in a case, such as a verdict, settlement, judgment, or final order. The court held that Dentons was entitled to the lien because unpaid legal fees constituted good cause for withdrawal.
The court deferred deciding the amount of the lien. It will determine that amount after the amount recovered by Ms. Patto, if any, has been finally determined.
Disposition
The court granted Dentons’ motion to withdraw as attorneys of record and to fix a charging lien on any verdict, settlement, judgment, or final order in the case. The court deferred ruling on the amount of the lien. Dentons must promptly serve the order on the counterclaim plaintiffs and file proof of service. If Ms. Patto does not have new counsel by December 16, 2025, she must notify the court whether she seeks more time to find counsel, wishes to proceed without a lawyer, or wishes to dismiss the remaining counterclaim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.