07-Dec-2021 02:54 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
Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 90 of 147ANN.lu
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 26-Sep-2003 02:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Fabio Alemagna):
Fabio said,
> However, at this point it must be said that if the lack of money is
> the reason for which the attorneys withdrawed, and it's not the fact
> that they believed they couldn't win, then nothing can be said about
> Amiga Inc.'s position in the case (that is, whether they were right
> or wrong): as we all know, often people who are right are forced to
> abandon the case because they can't afford it, in fact this is the
> most common remark that is made to the USA legal system.

This definitely isn't standard procedure for 'abandoning' a case. Either one doesn't get started in the first place, or the attorney would throw in some sort of motion for settlement, or some other document that basically informs the court 'There's no problem here, my client's going to agree or at least say he agrees at this juncture because it's cheaper than fighting it, sorry for wasting your time.' Rules of procedure; you don't drive away when the cop tries to pull you over because you intend to pay the ticket.

It was my understanding that lawyers generally take (civil) cases with fingers crossed and the intention of billing forever. The procedure exists to flee early, but this is balanced by the code of conduct they're required to follow to retain membership on the state bar. (Of course, to see dismissal from same, someone has to get together a legal malpractice suit, which is why there remain -- quoting someone in the business -- so many "scumbag attorneys" in practice. ;)) If the client goes broke with a case in progress, counsel retains a professional obligation to help him unf**k his matters or avoid making them worse, be it by referral to someone cheaper, rapid closure of the outstanding action (settlement, dismissal, whatever's quickest and least damaging), whatever.

A plumber isn't supposed to open a sewer line into your basement and drive off 'til you've mailed him a check. You'd expect him to leave the problem no worse than he found it, and if there's a billing dispute, he probably won't work for you again, or even file suit to claim his pay. Same deal with lawyers, they just 'luck out' providing a service mostly needed by people in financial crisis. (If everyone had unlimited wealth, what would be left to argue about? Just the occasional crime of passion.)

Now, if the client's been offered adequate counsel ("You're out of cash, from everything you've shown me, I'd take the settlement," for example) and refuses, the attorney is in a better position to wash his hands, though I'd expect he'd want or have to make their position clear to the bench. The obligation does imply a little "HAL 9000" leeway; if the client wants to do something the attorney as knowledgable counsel knows is damaging, he's supposed to Do Whatever the Right Thing Is, and either end up satisfying the client ("See? Told you it'd all work out!"), or with good ammunition for the malpractice suit if it comes to that.

That's the ideal; people in reality -- clients, attorneys, judges -- all tend to suck, or we wouldn't hate life so much. ;)

---

Okay, to specifics. Here's the state RPC:
http://courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=RPC
... Section 1.15 is what we care about if we want to care.

Given all that, any combination of the following could hold:

- Shukis and firm could be being a touch derelict here. ("Could" in the simple sense of possibility.)

- The case could be eating enough attorney resources that they figure they have nothing to lose at this point.

- AInc. may've told them to shove it.

- Were it negotiated in any way, the "has not responded" seems a little weird. I'd expect counsel to cover their posterior against malpractice by noting support or consent if it existed. No idea on court procedure, though, it could just be boilerplate in lieu of sworn statement.

- All the above point to some confidence that nobody'll bother or be able to bother with malpractice claims. (Could be that they feel they're covered under that RPC 1.15, could just be a lack of extraordinary skill, impossible to say how much anyone cares.)

Having prodded around a bit more (why does this always feel like stalking?), Shukis seems pretty cool, if not very grizzled. If I can try to think like a lawyer here (the pain! the pain!), that probably explains the lack of supporting documentation. It's a goofy, drawn out, low profit case, and it looks like this is just a 'feeler' to see if the judge will let the counsel off the hook.

If AInc. has resources left, one assumes they'd be 'peripherally' aware of it (while taking pains not to look emotional one way or the other), and figure they can wing it as a delaying benefit while retaining counsel that could be cheaper and more motivated.

If they only have the $100, then yeah, they're probably a little screwed. Sort of makes the 'license tax' seem worth it if it means we get to see this through to a proper conclusion. ;)
Jump...
#111 Fabio Alemagna
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
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
Comment 130dammyRegistered user26-Sep-2003 13:55 GMT
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