USA v. Rowe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERNDIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
LARRY ALFONSOROWE,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:25-cr-157
Judge AIgenon L. Marbley
OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defense Counsel Michael S. Probst's Motion to
Withdraw (ECF No. 22). The basis for Counsel's motion is that he "received an unsolicited text
from Mr. Rowe's girlfriend indicating Mr. Rowe wants to terminate the Attomey-Client
relationship and have a different attorney appointed to represent him in this Case. " (Id. at 2).
Counsel does not provide the date ofthis text, but states that he last met with his client on October
30, 2025, when they discussed litigation strategy for the case. {Id. }. Mr. Probst's withdrawal as
Counsel for the Defendant would be improper, and therefore the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Counsel seeking to withdraw must satisfy several requirements. First, it is fundamental to
the attomey-client relationship that it is the client who has the right to terminate his counsel. See
Ohio R. Prof. Conduct 1 .16(a)(3) cmts. 4, 5 (observing that the right to discharge counsel is lodged
with the client). ' Second, it is a rule of this Court that attorneys in criminal cases "may not
withdraw ... without first providing written notice to the client and all other parties and obtaining
' This Court incorporates the standards for professional conduct adopted by the Ohio Supreme
Court. See S. D. Ohio R. Disciplinary Enforcement IV(A).
Case: 2:25-cr-00157-ALM Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/02/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

leave of Court. " S. D. Ohio Crim. R. 83. 4(a). Third, appointed counsel in criminal cases have an
independent duty to provide their clients with a "full explanation of the consequences" when their
clients seek a discharge. Ohio R. Prof. Conduct 1. 16(a)(3) cmt. 5.
Counsel has not sufficiently shown that his client has sought to tenninate the attomey-
client relationship, he does not suggest that he has provided his client with written notice of his
intent to withdraw, and he does not represent that he has informed his client of the consequences
of such a discharge in this case, given he was appointed as counsel. (See ECF No. 7). In fact,
Counsel does not represent that he has even spoke to his client at all about this purported request
to terminate the relationship.
Counsel cannot withdraw from representing his client based on a text from his client s
girlfriend purporting to relayhisclient's request. Evenifthetexthadbeenfrom hisclient, Counsel
would still be obligated to provide his client with written notice pursuant to S. D. Ohio Crim. R.
83. 4(a) and advise his client of the consequences of his withdrawal in this case pursuant to Ohio
R. Prof. Conduct 1. 16(a)(3) cmt. 5. See United States v. Lay, 2023 WL 7224790, at *2 (S. D. Ohio
Nov. 2, 2023) (Marbley, J. ).
For the foregoing reasons, Counsel's motion is DENIEDWITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
-^^~z^r
ALGENOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: December 2, 2025
Case: 2:25-cr-00157-ALM Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/02/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>