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

Background

The order concerns defense counsel’s pending motion to withdraw from representing the defendants. It followed a May 1, 2024 telephone call held without the other parties present involving a defendant and defense counsel.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Local Rule 1.4, which requires court approval before an attorney who has appeared in a case may withdraw. The rule requires a showing of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal and information about the case’s status, including whether the attorney claims a retaining or charging lien. The court stated that defense counsel’s existing declaration was insufficient to grant withdrawal at that time.

Order

Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered defense counsel to submit a more detailed declaration by May 7, 2024. The declaration must explain the basis for the deterioration of the attorney-client relationship, state whether defense counsel is asserting a retaining or charging lien, and state whether each client consents to the withdrawal. To protect attorney-client privilege, counsel must submit the declaration privately and directly to the judge’s chambers. Counsel must also provide a copy to a representative of Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., referred to as the “Campaign,” and to Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer.

The order did not grant or deny the motion to withdraw. The court stated that the Campaign, as an entity, cannot represent itself. If withdrawal is granted and the Campaign does not promptly obtain substitute counsel, it may be at risk of default. All existing deadlines remained in place, including the scheduled May 9, 2024 telephone conference. Defense counsel had to ensure that all clients, including Priebus and Spicer, knew about the conference and its dial-in information. The defendants could also move to substitute counsel by submitting an agreement to substitute counsel before the applicable deadlines.