United States v. Media Rights Technologies, Inc.

Background

Defense counsel Betty J. Williams moved to withdraw as counsel of record for the defendants without substitution. She stated that the defendants had failed and refused to cooperate regarding discovery and had failed to timely pay fees connected with the representation in this and other cases.

Williams filed the motion on February 16, 2023. The opinion states that she gave the plaintiff and defendants reasonable notice of the requested withdrawal. She also represented that the defendants had received written notice and had affirmed that they were retaining other counsel.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the Northern District of California’s local rules governing attorney withdrawal. Those rules require a court order and reasonable written notice to the client and other parties who have appeared. When withdrawal is not accompanied by substitute counsel or an agreement that the client will proceed without a lawyer, the court may require the withdrawing attorney to continue accepting papers for forwarding until the client appears through new counsel or without a lawyer.

The court also considered California professional-conduct rules and the balance of the equities, including the reason for withdrawal, possible prejudice to other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and delay. The court found that Williams’s request satisfied the applicable rules, that withdrawal was permitted under the professional-conduct rules, and that withdrawal would not cause undue prejudice or delay.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Williams’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendants, subject to the stated conditions. Williams must accept service of papers for forwarding to the defendants until they appear through other counsel or without a lawyer, and she must notify the defendants of that condition.