Luxwear Ltd. v. Adaptive Research & Development Group, LLC

Background

Abrams Fensterman, LLP moved for permission to withdraw as counsel for defendant Adaptiv Research & Development Group d/b/a Adaptiv Biomed. The court treated the motion as seeking withdrawal by both Abrams Fensterman attorneys who had appeared for Adaptiv: Edward A. Smith and Daniel Stuart Alter. The firm also filed a motion to seal one supporting declaration.

Under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 1.4, a lawyer seeking to withdraw must show satisfactory reasons, describe the case’s posture and relevant deadlines, state whether the lawyer claims a retaining or charging lien, and serve the motion papers on the client and other parties. Filing the motion alone did not end the lawyers’ obligations or extend any deadlines.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Barbara Moses found the withdrawal papers insufficient for several reasons:

- The papers did not indicate that Adaptiv had been served. - The publicly filed papers did not describe the reasons for withdrawal, even in summary form. The court recognized that confidential details may be sealed when necessary to protect the attorney-client relationship, but stated that opposing counsel must be told the basis for the request. - The papers mentioned that fact discovery was scheduled to close on April 5, 2023, but did not explain what discovery remained or whether counsel intended to seek additional discovery. The deadline to move to compel additional discovery was March 28, 2023. - The firm stated that it asserted a charging lien for attorney fees but did not say whether it asserted a retaining lien. The court also questioned the basis for a charging lien because Adaptiv was a defendant and had filed no counterclaims. - Because Adaptiv was not a natural person, it could not defend itself without a lawyer. The firm did not request a stay or propose another arrangement to reduce possible prejudice while Adaptiv sought new counsel.

Rulings and Required Next Steps

The court granted the sealing motion at Docket 51. It denied without prejudice to renewal the motion for leave to withdraw at Docket 53. The court directed that a renewed motion must state the reasons for withdrawal. If nonpayment was a reason, the supporting declaration must disclose the amount owed, how long it had been since payment, and whether Adaptiv was unable or merely unwilling to pay. Confidential details could be redacted from the public filing, with an unredacted version filed under electronic seal when necessary.

The renewed motion also had to address remaining discovery, any retaining lien, and the basis for a charging lien when Adaptiv had asserted no claims or counterclaims. Before refiling, the firm had to serve the unredacted motion papers and the order on Adaptiv and file proof of service. Adaptiv could respond within seven calendar days after service, and other responses or objections were due within seven calendar days after the motion was filed. The court would decide later whether a hearing or conference was necessary. The Clerk was directed to close Dockets 51 and 53.