Miles v. Saenz et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
THEODORE MILES,
Debtor.
____________________________
THEODORE MILES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARLOS SAENZ, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 04-01128
(Chapter 13)
Adversary Proceeding No.
07-10000
MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING MOTION TO
PERMIT WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SAENZ
The attorneys for Carlos Saenz have filed a motion to
withdraw, alleging that Saenz has not paid their fees, and has
not acceded to their legal advice. 	Saenz has opposed the motion,
disputing the fees the attorneys claim they are owed, asserting
that he has not yet found replacement counsel, and denying their
allegation that he has not followed their advice.
The decision below is hereby signed. It is not
intended for publication in West's Bankruptcy
Reporter. Dated: November 5, 2007.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-10000 Doc 111 Filed 11/06/07 Entered 11/06/07 10:45:27 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
A court generally does not bar withdrawal of a party’s
attorneys unless it would interfere with the proceeding being
concluded on schedule. 	Here the plaintiff himself has recently
requested an enlargement of the schedule, and a trial date has
not been set. 	Moreover, there are many attorneys in this
district who are qualified and able to take on representation of
Saenz with reasonable promptness (conditioned on reasonable fee
terms). 	If he cannot afford replacement counsel, then he will
have to proceed without hired counsel (although pro bono counsel
might be available if he were indigent).
To the extent that Saenz’s contract with the attorneys
required them to represent him despite the dispute regarding
payment of fees (assume, for example, that no fees are owed and
the contract required continued representation if fees were
current), he may have rights under his contract upon the
attorneys withdrawing. 	For example, if the contract barred them
from withdrawing and he is damaged by their withdrawal, he may
have a claim for breach of that contract. 	But it is not for the
court to inquire prematurely into what the contract required. 	In
other words, unless withdrawal would have an adverse impact on
the disposition of this adversary proceeding, which it would not,
the court will not interfere with the attorneys’ decision to
terminate the relationship and face a potential claim of breach
of contract.
Case 07-10000 Doc 111 Filed 11/06/07 Entered 11/06/07 10:45:27 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\Judge Temp Docs\Miles vs Saenz - Order Authzg Withdrawal of Saenz Counsel.wpd
Finally, Saenz claims that the attorneys have not kept him
apprised of the steps they are taking on his behalf. 	This
suggests that they are now in an adversarial posture with respect
to whether they have carried out their obligation to represent
him in an appropriate fashion. 	That might be cause for
withdrawal even if a trial were imminent, but I do not reach that
issue.
An order follows permitting the attorneys to file a notice
of withdrawal if they are unable to patch up their differences
with Mr. Saenz.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
All counsel of record in this adversary proceeding; Carlos Saenz,
12154 Darnestown Road, #526, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.
Case 07-10000 Doc 111 Filed 11/06/07 Entered 11/06/07 10:45:27 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3