Brown v. Lewis et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEDEDIAH BROWN,
Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-11225
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
LADEL LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL (ECF No. 11); (2) TERMINATING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM LOCAL COUNSEL
REQUIREMENT (ECF No. 13); AND (3) STAYING CASE FOR 60 DAYS
On October 31, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to
Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 11). For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
Attorney Lawrence A. Katz and the Lento Law Group, P.C., are disqualified
from representing Plaintiff in this case. As the Court stressed on the record,
this ruling is not a reflection on Mr. Katz’s conduct in this action – about
which the Court has no concerns. Instead, as explained in detail on the record,
disqualification is required because Mr. Katz appears in the action through the
Lento Law Group, P.C., and the sole owner of that firm has had his law license
Case 2:25-cv-11225-MFL-DRG ECF No. 32, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2

2
suspended by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Court concludes that
under the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been adopted
by this Court, the suspension of the Pennsylvania law license of the sole owner
of the Lento Law Group, P.C., precludes attorneys from that firm from
practicing in Michigan courts and in this Court. The Court notes that Mr. Katz
candidly acknowledged on the record that this Court’s interpretation and
application of the governing rules to the facts of this case were reasonable.
(2) Plaintiff’s Application for Relief from Local Counsel Requirement (see ECF
No. 13, PageID.320) is TERMINATED AS MOOT.
(3) The action is stayed for 60 days to give Plaintiff time to find new counsel.
New counsel shall file an Appearance within 60 days. Once new counsel files
an Appearance, the Court will convene a status conference to discuss next
steps. Defendants need not file a reply in further support of their motion to
dismiss until further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
Dated: October 31, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on October 31, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz for Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
Case 2:25-cv-11225-MFL-DRG ECF No. 32, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2