Vick v. Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd.

Background

On March 4, 2024, the court granted the Basile Law Firm’s request to withdraw as counsel for Shadwrick J. Vick. The court directed the Firm to immediately provide all files and work product specific to this action and to refund Vick’s retainer fee as described in the Firm’s earlier submissions. The court also stayed the case for 60 days to give Vick an opportunity to find new counsel.

The earlier order did not decide whether Vick was entitled to documents that were not specific to this action. It stated that disputes about those documents should be addressed in a separate action.

Vick’s request and the Firm’s response

On March 7, 2024, Vick emailed the court that he believed the Firm had not provided his complete file for this case. He said the Firm had given him an electronic zip file containing only four Excel spreadsheets, the oldest dated December 18, 2023, although his attorney-client relationship with the Firm began in July 2023. He asked the court to address what he viewed as the discrepancy between a “client file” and the four spreadsheets and to order the Firm to provide his entire client file.

The Firm responded that it had complied with the March 4 order. It stated that it had provided email correspondence, an investigative report, relevant statutes and decisions, copies of the complaint, and documents and information reviewed in preparing the complaint, including materials included as complaint exhibits. The Firm also stated that no whistleblower interview had been conducted and that it could not provide copies of lawyers’ mental impressions concerning their experience, familiarity, and expertise with specified provisions of the Securities Exchange Act. The Firm said it had provided additional work product before the withdrawal order and invited Vick to identify documents he believed were missing.

Court’s ruling

The court first directed Vick and the Firm to stop emailing the court about their former attorney-client relationship. It stated that court submissions must be filed through the court’s electronic filing system, and that Vick, who was temporarily acting without a lawyer, had to submit filings through the Pro Se Intake Unit.

The court reminded Vick that he could not continue prosecuting this action without counsel. He could act without a lawyer only during the 60-day stay, and the court stated that this deadline would not be extended.

Judge Katharine H. Parker then denied Vick’s request for a supplemental order clarifying the meaning of a “client file.” Because the Firm’s withdrawal had already been granted, the court stated that Vick’s recourse against the Firm was in state court.

Client-file guidance

The court referred Vick and the Firm to Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn L.L.P., a New York Court of Appeals decision. As summarized in the order, that decision generally treats a client file as documents possessed by the lawyer that relate to the representation. Former clients are presumptively entitled to work-product materials that they reasonably need, subject to narrow exceptions such as documents intended for a law firm’s internal review and use. The decision also stated that the cost of assembling and delivering documents may be charged to the client.

The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Mark R. Basile and the Basile Law Firm, mail it to Vick, and add Vick’s listed address to the docket.