Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.

Background

Arlene Delgado sued Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Trump For America, Inc., Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, and Stephen Bannon. Her claims include breach of contract, employment discrimination, retaliation, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC represented Delgado throughout the case. Daniel Kirschbaum became lead counsel after the prior lead counsel left the firm.

The firm and Kirschbaum moved under Local Civil Rule 1.4 for permission to withdraw. They cited an “irreparable breakdown” in the attorney-client relationship. Delgado opposed the motion, and the defendants took no position. At the time, document discovery was largely complete, party depositions had been scheduled, and no expert discovery had occurred. The court later held a private conference and reviewed confidential submissions from Delgado and Kirschbaum.

Reasons for Withdrawal

Local Civil Rule 1.4 requires court permission for an attorney of record to withdraw and permits withdrawal when the attorney provides a satisfactory reason and information about the case’s status and any lien for fees. The court considered both the reason for withdrawal and its effect on the case.

The court found that the attorney-client relationship had broken down and that Delgado’s submissions confirmed her lack of confidence in the firm and Kirschbaum. It stated that it did not need to determine who caused the strain and did not assign blame to either side. The court also found that disagreements about settlement strategy were not the sole or predominant reason for withdrawal. Because Kirschbaum represented Delgado on behalf of the firm, rather than as a sole practitioner, the court declined to require another lawyer from the firm to continue representing her.

Effect on the Case

The court found that the case remained in the discovery stage, no trial had been scheduled, and withdrawal would not have a particularly significant effect on the case’s timing. Although Delgado argued that withdrawal would make it harder to find new counsel, the court concluded that this did not justify denying the motion.

The court stayed the action through Wednesday, May 31, 2023, to give Delgado time to obtain new counsel. If she did not obtain counsel by then, the case would proceed with her representing herself. Delgado had to file a letter by May 16 stating whether she had obtained new counsel or would proceed without a lawyer.

Fees, Costs, and Disposition

The firm said it would not seek a lien for fees on any settlement but intended to seek reimbursement of certain litigation expenses and reserved the right to apply for fees if Delgado prevailed at trial. A charging lien is a potential claim against a recovery in the case; a retaining lien allows a lawyer to hold documents until paid; and a quantum meruit claim seeks payment for the reasonable value of services. The court made no decision about whether the firm had “good cause” to pursue a charging lien or quantum meruit claim. The firm did not request a retaining lien and was ordered to provide Delgado with the relevant files by March 17, 2023.

The court granted the motion to withdraw. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and terminate Kirschbaum and Ian Bryson as counsel of record for Delgado. The action was stayed through May 31, 2023, and a telephonic case-management conference was scheduled for May 17, 2023. The order expressly stated that it did not affect the merits of Delgado’s underlying claims.