I really could use some help here...please?

[ColoradoBell]

I've posted this before. Last week my attonrey decided to withdraw, I think because my ex's modus operendi is to file a kazillion motions and my attorney agreed to handle my entire 13, including adversarials for a measly $10,000 (said very tongue in cheek).

She said that she didn't want to leave me in the lurch...but of course she has. A kajillion responses were due last Monday and though she filed for continuances, I'm now left with the task (if the court even grants the continuances) of trying to find new representation to 'clean up her mess'. Worse, I paid 4k up front with 6k in the plan, and so there is no money for up front fees.

I have until Friday to object to her withdrawal. I'd like to object but it's useless to demand that she continue as she will probably only make a half baked attempt to represent me. So what I'd like to do is ask the court to grant the withdrawal only if she agrees to compensate the attorney who 'takes over' her contract committment if he will only do it for more money. You know, if I"m held to paying for a fee agreement then it only seems fair that my attonrey is held to their committment to provide services which include everything ...adversarials included, no exclusions...for $4k up front and 6k 'in the plan'.

So what would be a good way to word my objection re such a stipulation?

[tobee43]

really this is an complicated situation. personally, i would ask her to reduce in writing why it is she's withdrawing from your case. (not that you have time or need the stress, but if it were not a completely valid reason i report her ass to the state bar...you might be lucky enough to get her hand slapped...not that that will help YOU much).

as far as you personally answering the objection....that's a very personal decision...and i very much agree with you that she most likely will not protect your interest or at least you are now made to feel that way because of this situation she's left you in.

honestly, for the time being, and hopefully someone else may be able to give you more and better insight that i, but i would file the objection....keep it as simple as possible by responding to the court with an explanation such as you have just described....keeping a few things out.

if nothing else, it may buy you some time to see if you can retain another atty, who may be better equipped to succeed in getting a continuance for you.

best of luck!

[despritfreya]

[tobee43]

despritfreya....

Will the Court allow your attny to withdraw? Absolutely.

Will the Court require her to shoulder some of the cost of you finding a new attny if you file a partial objection to the Motion? Absolutely not.

have not seen past post as you have...but really, that is unbelievable that she can just withdraw...that is just terrible.

since i don't know the history as well as you, i just can't believe the atty bares no responsibility or obligation to her client.

[despritfreya]

In response to:

"but really, that is unbelievable that she can just withdraw...that is just terrible."

CB's attorney probably made what is called a "noise motion" indicating something along the lines of "irreconcilable differences". Due to attorney-client priv. there is very little that can be said in the Motion. Assuming, in CB's situation such was the case the Judge will "read between the lines". When my firm does this the Judge always approves as each Judge in the District knows that the firm doesn't file such a Motion without very good cause.

As to the responsibility to the client - the attny is required to turn over the file and to advise the client of any deadlines. Any dispute over fees paid to date can be either handled between the attny and former client or through mediation as most Bar Associations have a procedure for such disputes.

[tobee43]

the silent but deadly notification.....

personally, i would not want to work with an atty that has asked to withdraw...however, i understand after paying the monies and being left with pending motions unanswered, it is a difficult situation for anyone.

thanks for the response...hope the OP makes out alright.

[despritfreya]

In response to:

"personally, I would not want to work with an atty that has asked to withdraw"

Chances are 100% of all attorneys have withdrawn from at least 1 case during their career. The firm I work for handles high risk cases with very difficult clients - cases that very few other attorneys would consider handling. On occasion we get a client that is just too difficult to deal with or one that has an unrealistic expectation of what can be done or one that just plain wants to do something illegal. Unfortunately not all debtors are squeaky clean.

[tobee43]

In response to:

"personally, I would not want to work with an atty that has asked to withdraw"

Chances are 100% of all attorneys have withdrawn from at least 1 case during their career. The firm I work for handles high risk cases with very difficult clients - cases that very few other attorneys would consider handling. On occasion we get a client that is just too difficult to deal with or one that has an unrealistic expectation of what can be done or one that just plain wants to do something illegal. Unfortunately not all debtors are squeaky clean.

well, i meant that on a personal level. in the 4 firms i worked for, we never had one atty withdraw from a client. but then again, i would think, of course it depends of what type of law firm you are working for.

some higher risks situations present themselves with "higher" risk clients , i would conclude.

[ColoradoBell]

desprit,
your observation that the state court knows more about the case is incorrect. The Judge who made the Permanent Orders in the divorce in 2003 is retired. His replacement is retired and currently and until Jan 1, there is a rotation of outside judges handling district cases for 2 week time periods...and certainly THEY wouldn't know anything about this case.

He hasn't asked to revert back to state court as there is nothing for the state court to decide (except for mod of maintenance). It has already been decided but X refuses to comply. Yes, I could file contempt.

He has asked that the REceiver be allowed to continue with the sale of my home but that would be in direct conflict of state court orders that there can be no sale without both parties agreeing on the sale price. (X approved; I did not and instead, per Perm Orders , invoked my right to buy out X's share at a price more than the price offered by the Buyers that he approved.

What he hopes is that if the house gets sold quick that he will get paid the lien that he encumbered the house with...against the specific orders of the state court. That, and he probalby has his hand in the Buyer's pocket.

I have absolutely no objection to my attonrey disclosing anything we discussed to the court. I was as honest with her as I am here and have nothing to hide from the court or ex.

I will file an objection but will give thought to how I can ask the judge to 'read between the lines' insofar as the monetary agreement as opposed to their being any 'issues' that I might not want brought into the open.
Tobee: thanks; I'm with you, there otta be a law but guess who writes the laws?

[ColoradoBell]

desprit,
your observation that the state court knows more about the case is incorrect. The Judge who made the Permanent Orders in the divorce in 2003 is retired. His replacement is retired and currently and until Jan 1, there is a rotation of outside judges handling district cases for 2 week time periods...and certainly THEY wouldn't know anything about this case.

He hasn't asked to revert back to state court as there is nothing for the state court to decide (except for mod of maintenance). It has already been decided but X refuses to comply. Yes, I could file contempt.

He has asked that the REceiver be allowed to continue with the sale of my home but that would be in direct conflict of state court orders that there can be no sale without both parties agreeing on the sale price. (X approved; I did not and instead, per Perm Orders , invoked my right to buy out X's share at a price more than the price offered by the Buyers that he approved.

What he hopes is that if the house gets sold quick that he will get paid the lien that he encumbered the house with...against the specific orders of the state court. That, and he probalby has his hand in the Buyer's pocket.

I have absolutely no objection to my attonrey disclosing anything we discussed to the court. I was as honest with her as I am here and have nothing to hide from the court or ex.

I will file an objection but will give thought to how I can ask the judge to 'read between the lines' insofar as the monetary agreement as opposed to their being any 'issues' that I might not want brought into the open.
I dont' think I'm a difficult client or one with any expectations other than I've listed all my debts and assets and agreed to pay more than my DMI would predict. I want to buy out my X's share of the house so that I have a place to live cheaper than renting and an asset that might someday provide payment for any debts that remain. Yes, I wanted the attonrey to avoid liens that impaired the homestead exemption but that is hardly difficult.

des: if you can, it would be really helpful if there was some legalese response to 'if the house is allowed to sell to Buyers then Creditors would get paid' when the only creditor who would benefit is an attorney and the Receiver. Based on the sale price there wouldn't be enough to pay homestead exemption and all unsecured would go unpaid and I have no other asset than the house to pay them with.


Tobee: thanks; I'm with you, there otta be a law but guess who writes the laws?

[tobee43]

i hear you loud and clear coloradobell....

and i can be objective to your situation...i know that are good or great atty's and or judges out there, but there are some really piss poor ones as well.

it's a difficult situation for you since the atty most likely has established relationships with the court...that's usually why one hires the atty they hire. so, frankly, i still believe her withdrawal request has compromised your case and the courts will need to allow you some time to resolve these issues.

[despritfreya]

CB:

In response to:

"des: if you can, it would be really helpful if there was some legalese response to 'if the house is allowed to sell to Buyers then Creditors would get paid' when the only creditor who would benefit is an attorney and the Receiver. Based on the sale price there wouldn't be enough to pay homestead exemption and all unsecured would go unpaid and I have no other asset than the house to pay them with."

_____________________________

I truly wish I could give you guidance in formulating proper language. The problem is that you do have a very complex case and without full access to the file I would not be in a position to help. Needless to say I am not licensed to practice in your State.

There is an old saying - "what ever you have to say, say it like you would to a child of 13". Using legalese is not the answer and is something I rarely do. Plain ole English gets the job done. Just remember, if you are going to proceed pro se, you will lose the Judge if you ramble on and on. You may have the most justified argument since Moses came down from the Mountain, but if you make the argument convoluted no one will ever hear you.

[LadyInTheRed]

There is an old saying - "what ever you have to say, say it like you would to a child of 13". Using legalese is not the answer and is something I rarely do. Plain ole English gets the job done. Just remember, if you are going to proceed pro se, you will lose the Judge if you ramble on and on. You may have the most justified argument since Moses came down from the Mountain, but if you make the argument convoluted no one will ever hear you.

Yep. One thing I have learned in drafting legal documents is to say only what needs to be said. Use as few words as possible to say what you need to say, then reread your petition and cut out more words.

If I followed that rule when posting here, my above statement would be half the length.