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

Background

Arlene Delgado sued Trump for America, Inc., Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, and Stephen Bannon, each individually. Her claims include breach of contract, employment discrimination, retaliation, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. She was initially represented by the Derek Smith Law Group.

The court previously allowed the Derek Smith Law Group and then John M. Phillips to withdraw after each cited an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The court granted extensions of the fact-discovery deadline during these changes in representation, while warning that further extensions would require good cause. William C. Odle appeared for Delgado on October 27, 2023, and moved to withdraw on December 1, 2023. He cited fundamental disagreements, including disagreements about legal strategy, and stated that he was not asserting a charging or retaining lien.

The court held a private conference with Odle and Delgado on December 11, 2023. Delgado objected to the withdrawal and later submitted another letter repeating her opposition and raising concerns about Odle’s representation.

Legal standard

Local Civil Rule 1.4 requires a lawyer who has appeared in a case to obtain the court’s permission before withdrawing. The lawyer must provide satisfactory reasons for withdrawal, and the court must consider the posture of the case, including its schedule and whether the lawyer asserts a charging or retaining lien. The decision is within the court’s discretion. The court considered both the reason for withdrawal and its effect on the timing of the case.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the attorney-client relationship between Odle and Delgado had broken down. It ruled that this was a satisfactory reason for withdrawal, even though Delgado opposed it. The court said it did not need to determine who caused the conflict or assign blame.

The court recognized that withdrawal had caused delays but found that the effect was not significant enough to require denial of the motion. Because Delgado is an individual rather than a corporation, she could continue the case without a lawyer while seeking new counsel or if she could not find new counsel. The court noted that it would give her the appropriate consideration given to people representing themselves, because she was not a litigator and was not licensed to practice law in New York.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to withdraw. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, remove Odle as counsel of record, and note that Delgado was proceeding without a lawyer. Odle was ordered to give Delgado all relevant files as soon as practicable and no later than December 22, 2023. Delgado was also directed to provide contact information to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit by that date so filings could be sent to her. The court expressly stated that the decision did not affect the merits of Delgado’s claims.