Opinion
Case No. 2:00-cv-214-FTM-29D.
December 13, 2000.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Renewed Motion of Defendants' Counsel for Leave to Withdraw (Doc. #46), filed November 8, 2000. No opposition to the motion has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Local Rule 3.01(b), United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.
A motion to permissively withdraw is a matter in the discretion of the court. Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 135 (1st Cir. 1985). Pursuant to Local Rule 2.03, the Court may permit withdrawal, provided that such withdrawal does not cause continuance or delay in the case. Where withdrawal would cause delay or a continuance, counsel must establish "compelling ethical considerations" before the Court will allow withdrawal.
In considering a motion to withdraw, other federal courts have weighed "the reasons why withdrawal is sought; the prejudice withdrawal may cause the litigants; the delay in the resolution of the case which would result in withdrawal; and, the effect of withdrawal on the efficient administration of justice." Rusinow v. Kamara, 920 F. Supp. 69, 71 (D.N.J. 1996); see Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 2000 WL 537380 at *1 (E.D. Penn. April 25, 2000) (citing cases applying weighing test). Other federal courts have recognized that a "client's failure to pay attorney's fees may well support the withdrawal of counsel." Hammond v. T.J. Litle Co., 809 F. Supp. 156 (D. Mass. 1992); see also Fischer v. Biman Bangladesh Airlines, 1997 WL 411446 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 1997); White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Island Kitchens, Inc., 884 F. Supp. 176, 180 (E.D. Penn. 1995) (citing New York Code of Professional Responsibility rule on permissive withdrawal).
In addition, the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which govern the conduct of all attorneys admitted to practice in the Middle District of Florida under Local Rules 2.01 or 2.02, sanction withdrawal where "the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled." Rule 4-1.16, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. The Court is satisfied that the law firms of Ekonomou Atkinson Lambros and Fotopulos Spridgeon have duly notified defendants their intent to withdraw, and defendants have filed no response.
Weighing against the factors in favor of permitting withdrawal, however, is the rule in this Court that a corporation may appear and be heard only through counsel admitted to practice in the Court pursuant to Local Rules 2.01 or 2.02. A corporation can never appear pro se.
Counsel gives no reason to support the motion and state they do not have defendants' permission to disclose their reason for seeking to withdraw from the case.
Counsel for defendants, however, have complied with the requirements of Local Rule 2.03(b), and substitution of counsel will not delay the course of this case, given the current trial date in February, 2002. Significantly, defendants have voiced no objection to the withdrawal. Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Renewed Motion of Defendants' Counsel for Leave to Withdraw (Doc. #46), filed November 8, 2000, is GRANTED. The law firms of Ekonomou Atkinson Lambros and Fotopulos Spridgeon and its attorneys are relieved of any further responsibility in this matter.
2. Defendant Phil Driscoll shall be deemed to represent himself pro se until a notice of appearance of counsel is filed.
3. In accordance with Local Rule 2.03(d), United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a corporation may appear and be heard only through counsel admitted to practice in the Court. Defendant Phil Driscoll Ministries, Inc. shall cause a Notice of Appearance to be filed by January 12, 2001 by the new attorney who will represent it. Failure to do so may result in sanctions, including a default and default judgment.
4. Ekonomou Atkinson Lambros and Fotopulos Spridgeon shall serve defendants with a copy of this Order forthwith.