KLM Consulting LLC v. Panacea Shipping Company, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-05194
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In KLM Consulting v. Panacea Shipping, Judge Engelmayer held counsel’s withdrawal request for two weeks, giving KLM time to hire a lawyer.
KLM Consulting LLC, Herd Law Firm, and the defendants, including Maersk Agency U.S.A. Inc.
What happened
KLM Consulting LLC v. Panacea Shipping Company, Inc. involves Herd Law Firm’s request to withdraw as KLM’s lawyer. The court explained that a legal entity cannot represent itself without an attorney.
The court gave KLM until May 5, 2023, to retain a new lawyer and have that lawyer formally appear. Until then, the court held Herd Law Firm’s withdrawal request in abeyance, meaning it did not yet rule on the request.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said the court expected to grant the withdrawal request by May 5, or earlier if new counsel appeared. He also warned that if KLM remained unrepresented, the court would consider Maersk Agency U.S.A. Inc.’s expected summary-judgment motion as unopposed, and ordered Herd Law Firm to serve KLM with the order and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- KLM Consulting LLC v. Panacea Shipping Company, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05194
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
Herd Law Firm, PLLC moved to withdraw as counsel of record for plaintiff KLM Consulting LLC. The court cited the rule that a layperson may not represent a separate legal entity such as a corporation. The court therefore stated that KLM could not continue defending the lawsuit unless it obtained new counsel.
Ruling
The court held Herd Law Firm’s withdrawal request in abeyance until May 5, 2023, giving KLM two weeks to retain a new attorney and have that attorney formally appear. The court stated that it expected to grant the withdrawal request at that time and would do so earlier if successor counsel appeared for KLM.
The court further stated that, if KLM remained unrepresented after May 5, it would be compelled to evaluate defendant Maersk Agency U.S.A. Inc.’s anticipated motion for summary judgment as unopposed. The court did not change any other deadlines.
Service Requirement and Effect
Herd Law Firm was directed to promptly serve KLM with a copy of the order. After completing service, the firm was required to file a sworn declaration or affidavit on the court’s electronic filing system stating that service occurred and identifying the dates and means of service. The order did not yet grant or deny Herd Law Firm’s withdrawal request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.