07-Dec-2021 03:33 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[News] Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga LawsuitANN.lu
Posted on 25-Sep-2003 20:26 GMT by Rich Woods147 comments
View flat
View list
Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit Although I have known about this action since last weekend I have refrained from posting this info until I had the court documentation available. It has just become available today.

23 MOTION Requesting Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant by Amiga Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

09/19/2003

24 DECLARATION of DIANA S. SHUKIS in Support of 23 MOTION RequestingLeave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant, filed by Defendant Amiga Inc. re (Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

09/19/2003

25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Amiga Inc re 23 MOTION for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, 24 Declaration of Diana S. Shukis. (Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

Amiga's attorney's have filed a motion before the Federal Court to withdraw as Attorneys for Amiga - effectively leaving them with no counsel.

This means that they could default on their action(s) and counter-claims.

The documents are available at:

Certificate of Service To Withdraw

Shukis Withdrawl

Withdrawal of Counsel 1

Withdrawal of counsel 2

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Emeric SH25-Sep-2003 18:31 GMT
Comment 2takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 18:32 GMT
Comment 3takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 18:32 GMT
Comment 4dammyRegistered user25-Sep-2003 18:33 GMT
Comment 5Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 18:35 GMT
Comment 6takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 18:39 GMT
Comment 7takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 18:43 GMT
Comment 8takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 18:44 GMT
Comment 9Bill Hoggett25-Sep-2003 18:48 GMT
Comment 10Anonymous25-Sep-2003 18:48 GMT
Comment 11Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 18:49 GMT
Comment 12Kronos25-Sep-2003 18:49 GMT
Comment 13Kronos25-Sep-2003 18:50 GMT
Comment 14Tryo25-Sep-2003 18:52 GMT
Comment 15takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 18:55 GMT
Comment 16T_Bone25-Sep-2003 18:56 GMT
Comment 17Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 18:57 GMT
Comment 18takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 19:00 GMT
Comment 19T_Bone25-Sep-2003 19:02 GMT
Comment 20Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 19:03 GMT
Comment 21Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 19:03 GMT
Comment 22Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 19:05 GMT
Comment 23Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 19:10 GMT
Comment 24takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 19:10 GMT
Comment 25takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 19:11 GMT
Comment 26Martin Blom25-Sep-2003 19:12 GMT
Comment 27Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 19:17 GMT
Comment 28Anonymous25-Sep-2003 19:25 GMT
Comment 29Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 19:29 GMT
Comment 30takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 19:31 GMT
Comment 31Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 19:35 GMT
Comment 32Anonymous25-Sep-2003 19:36 GMT
Comment 33T_Bone25-Sep-2003 19:38 GMT
Comment 34Anonymous25-Sep-2003 19:39 GMT
Comment 35Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 19:39 GMT
Comment 36T_Bone25-Sep-2003 19:40 GMT
Comment 37Paul GaddRegistered user25-Sep-2003 19:40 GMT
Comment 38Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 19:41 GMT
Comment 39Anonymous25-Sep-2003 19:41 GMT
Comment 40Bill Hoggett25-Sep-2003 19:42 GMT
Comment 41Anonymous25-Sep-2003 19:43 GMT
Comment 42Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 19:48 GMT
Comment 43T_Bone25-Sep-2003 19:50 GMT
Comment 44Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 19:51 GMT
Comment 45takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 19:53 GMT
Comment 46Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 19:53 GMT
Comment 47takemehomegrandmaRegistered user25-Sep-2003 19:54 GMT
Comment 48T_Bone25-Sep-2003 19:57 GMT
Comment 49Gabriele FavrinRegistered user25-Sep-2003 19:58 GMT
Comment 50Anonymous25-Sep-2003 20:04 GMT
Comment 51que25-Sep-2003 20:06 GMT
Comment 52Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 20:08 GMT
Comment 53Anonymous25-Sep-2003 20:10 GMT
Comment 54Gabriele FavrinRegistered user25-Sep-2003 20:12 GMT
Comment 55Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 20:12 GMT
Comment 56Bill Hoggett25-Sep-2003 20:15 GMT
Comment 57T_Bone25-Sep-2003 20:15 GMT
Comment 58Anonymous25-Sep-2003 20:16 GMT
Comment 59Dom Front25-Sep-2003 20:25 GMT
Comment 60Anonymous25-Sep-2003 20:30 GMT
Comment 61Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 20:31 GMT
Comment 62Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 20:32 GMT
Comment 63Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 20:33 GMT
Comment 64Dom Front25-Sep-2003 20:40 GMT
Comment 65catohagen25-Sep-2003 20:42 GMT
Comment 66Anonymous25-Sep-2003 20:43 GMT
Comment 67Fabio Alemagna25-Sep-2003 20:47 GMT
Comment 68Dom Front25-Sep-2003 20:51 GMT
Comment 69Rich Woods25-Sep-2003 20:53 GMT
Comment 70T_Bone25-Sep-2003 20:54 GMT
Comment 71T_Bone25-Sep-2003 21:23 GMT
Comment 72Dom Front25-Sep-2003 21:30 GMT
Comment 73wanadoo user25-Sep-2003 21:43 GMT
Comment 74JoannaK25-Sep-2003 21:50 GMT
Comment 75Anonymous25-Sep-2003 21:52 GMT
Comment 76JoannaK25-Sep-2003 22:19 GMT
Comment 77Eva25-Sep-2003 22:39 GMT
Comment 78Eva25-Sep-2003 22:41 GMT
Comment 79Eva25-Sep-2003 22:45 GMT
Comment 80Eva25-Sep-2003 22:48 GMT
Comment 81hooligan/dcsRegistered user25-Sep-2003 23:02 GMT
Comment 82Bill Hoggett25-Sep-2003 23:06 GMT
Comment 83JoannaK25-Sep-2003 23:07 GMT
Comment 84Ronald26-Sep-2003 00:16 GMT
Comment 85EyeAm26-Sep-2003 00:34 GMT
Comment 86Rich Woods26-Sep-2003 00:59 GMT
Comment 87Rich Woods26-Sep-2003 01:29 GMT
Comment 88Rich Woods26-Sep-2003 01:33 GMT
Comment 89Rich Woods26-Sep-2003 01:46 GMT
Comment 90Joe "Floid" Kanowitz26-Sep-2003 02:19 GMT
Comment 91dammyRegistered user26-Sep-2003 02:45 GMT
Comment 92Joe "Floid" Kanowitz26-Sep-2003 02:52 GMT
Comment 93Rich Woods26-Sep-2003 03:14 GMT
Comment 94Anonymous26-Sep-2003 03:41 GMT
Comment 95Anonymous26-Sep-2003 03:42 GMT
Comment 96Joe "Floid" Kanowitz26-Sep-2003 04:00 GMT
Comment 97hammer26-Sep-2003 04:42 GMT
Comment 98Don CoxRegistered user26-Sep-2003 05:21 GMT
Comment 99Anonymous26-Sep-2003 05:46 GMT
Comment 100T_Bone26-Sep-2003 05:50 GMT
Comment 101Tigger26-Sep-2003 05:56 GMT
Comment 102Emeric SH26-Sep-2003 05:59 GMT
Comment 103Amon_ReRegistered user26-Sep-2003 06:02 GMT
Comment 104IanSRegistered user26-Sep-2003 06:12 GMT
Comment 105Emeric SH26-Sep-2003 06:34 GMT
Comment 106Anonymous26-Sep-2003 07:09 GMT
Comment 107Emeric SH26-Sep-2003 07:15 GMT
Comment 108Anonymous26-Sep-2003 07:16 GMT
Comment 109Bill Hoggett26-Sep-2003 07:18 GMT
Comment 110Daniel Miller26-Sep-2003 07:41 GMT
Comment 111Fabio Alemagna26-Sep-2003 07:42 GMT
Comment 112T_Bone26-Sep-2003 08:18 GMT
Comment 113Emeric SH26-Sep-2003 08:21 GMT
Comment 114Anonymous26-Sep-2003 08:29 GMT
Comment 115T_Bone26-Sep-2003 08:43 GMT
Comment 116Fabio Alemagna26-Sep-2003 08:59 GMT
Comment 117Fabio Alemagna26-Sep-2003 09:16 GMT
Comment 118Emeric SH26-Sep-2003 09:27 GMT
Comment 119Fabio Alemagna26-Sep-2003 09:58 GMT
Comment 120Andrea Maniero26-Sep-2003 09:58 GMT
Comment 121T_Bone26-Sep-2003 10:09 GMT
Comment 122Anonymous26-Sep-2003 10:53 GMT
Comment 123gz26-Sep-2003 11:00 GMT
Comment 124Rich Woods26-Sep-2003 12:02 GMT
Comment 125MarkTime26-Sep-2003 12:13 GMT
Comment 126dammyRegistered user26-Sep-2003 12:18 GMT
Comment 127Kronos26-Sep-2003 12:35 GMT
Comment 128Bill Hoggett26-Sep-2003 13:09 GMT
Comment 129T_Bone26-Sep-2003 13:13 GMT
Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 130 of 147ANN.lu
Posted by dammy on 26-Sep-2003 13:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 128 (Bill Hoggett):
> dammy

> What you are suggesting is that the law firm can just drop a case
> because they don't fancy it any more, with no other preamble or
> justfication. If that's the case then the US justice system, even
> for civil cases, is shabby indeed.

We're talking about the land of Weasels here. Of course, what idiot would want a lawyer to represent them when their lawyer wants nothing to do with them? Should the courts compel a law firm to represent someone they no longer wish to for whatever reason? There are contracts signed at the time when client/firm agree to work/pay for representation. Once that contract if violated or voided (again, this is a contract prepared by weasels and for weasels with whatever Federal or State laws protecting the clients from unethical treatment thrown into it), it's time to cut the worthless cases/clients loose.

> If what you say is valid, what's to stop Genesi offering the lawyers
> more money to dump the case?

There are some ethics that lawyers as officers of the courts, have to abide by. Your example is something that the ethics would forbid them from doing (not too mention they would be open to a law suit themselves by doing such a thing).

> (I don't for one minute believe that this happened, or that it would be
> legal in a Federal court, but I'm no expert)

It wouldn't be.

> Actually, if the motivation is not financial (as in Amiga not paying
> their bill, not the lawyers chasing bigger payoffs), then the chances
> are you have already though of the alternative: Amiga are insisting on
> adopting a defense which the lawyers feel would compromise them.

It's possible, but McBill would have to be a raving fruitcake to tell his unpaid lawyers on what to do that would violate their ethical stands with the courts and WA State Bar.

> I think you really need an overactive imagination to deduce anything
> about the validity or otherwise of the case itself from what we _know_.

If you would step down from what lofty ideas you have about lawyers and into the world of weasels, you may come to understand that law firms are interested in one thing, money. They are in business to make money, else they would be government lawyers working for next to nothing and worked to death. If they can't see any monies coming in, from their defending Amiga Inc or getting monies on contingence fees on Amiga Inc's counter law suit (McBill jokingly said, what, $14 Billion in damages?), do you really think they are going to continue on representing a deadbeat?

I take it the UK doesn't do contingence (wonder if I'm spelling that right?) fees for lawyers? If so, the lawyers will pick and choose which cases have a chance of making monies. Why would they do that instead of a guarenteed money for their work? In the US, it's capped at 40% plus expenses of anything awarded to their client if they win. This is why I'm saying Amiga Inc's soon to be former law firm saw nothing in it for them, including Amiga Inc's counter suit making any money for them.

> You know what they say about people who assume things.

Due tell.

Dammy
Jump...
#139 Joe "Floid" Kanowitz
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 131smithy26-Sep-2003 14:08 GMT
Comment 132smithy26-Sep-2003 14:11 GMT
Comment 133redfox26-Sep-2003 14:25 GMT
Comment 134Rich Woods26-Sep-2003 14:54 GMT
Comment 135Brain dead bored.26-Sep-2003 16:33 GMT
Comment 136Anonymous26-Sep-2003 16:56 GMT
Comment 137Don CoxRegistered user26-Sep-2003 17:49 GMT
Comment 138EyeAm26-Sep-2003 18:28 GMT
Comment 139Joe "Floid" Kanowitz26-Sep-2003 18:43 GMT
Comment 140EyeAm26-Sep-2003 18:51 GMT
Comment 141MarkTime26-Sep-2003 19:06 GMT
Comment 142JoannaK26-Sep-2003 20:38 GMT
Comment 143EyeAm26-Sep-2003 23:15 GMT
Comment 144Anonymous27-Sep-2003 00:37 GMT
Comment 145gz27-Sep-2003 09:09 GMT
Comment 146EyeAm28-Sep-2003 03:16 GMT
Comment 147naskali28-Sep-2003 12:59 GMT
Back to Top