|[News] Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit||ANN.lu|
|Posted on 25-Sep-2003 20:26 GMT by Rich Woods||147 comments|
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)
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)
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
Withdrawal of Counsel 1
Withdrawal of counsel 2
|List of all comments to this article|
|Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 130 of 147||ANN.lu|
|Posted by dammy on 26-Sep-2003 13:55 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 128 (Bill Hoggett):|
> 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.
|List of all comments to this article (continued)||