Opinion
10905-17
09-01-2023
SCOTT RAMELOT & HANNAH RAMELOT, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch Judge
On August 30, 2023, Matthew Henderson filed with the Court a document captioned "Withdrawal of Counsel." Although not captioned as such, the document satisfies the requirements of a Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel. See Rule 24(c)(1). Under Rule 24,
Counsel desiring to withdraw as counsel for a party may file a notice of withdrawal as counsel if:
(A) more than one counsel entered appearances for that party and at least one counsel will continue to serve as counsel for that party;
(B) the notice of withdrawal is filed no later than 30 days before the first day of the Court's session at which the case is calendared for trial; and
(C) there is no objection to the withdrawal.
Although he satisfies the criteria for withdrawing by notice, when electronically filing what we believe was intended to be a Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel, Mr. Henderson electronically filed it as a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. This requires that the Court either grant an unnecessary motion, order an unnecessary response, order the Clerk to recharacterize the motion, or order that the Clerk deem the improperly filed document to be stricken. We will do the latter.
If Mr. Henderson intends to withdraw from this case, we will provide him some guidance. First, we note that Mr. Henderson has entered his appearance in this case and four others that are part of a group of five consolidated cases. We will further note that he filed motions to withdraw in only three of those cases. If intending to withdraw from all five cases, we recommend that he file a properly captioned notice of withdrawal as counsel simultaneously in all of these consolidated cases.
For the reasons stated above, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed August 30, 2023, shall be deemed stricken.