Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sabre International Security v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC
Citations: 219 F. Supp. 3d 155; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164269; 2016 WL 6998591Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-0806
Court: District Court, District of Columbia; November 29, 2016; Federal District Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Sabre International Security filed a civil action against Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC, its principals Jerry Torres and Rebekah Dyer. The law firms of Maggs, McDermott LLC and Michael A. Gordon PLLC represent Sabre, who is seeking to withdraw their counsel without substitution. Torres opposed this motion. The Moving Attorneys also requested to submit a confidential declaration under seal for in camera review, which was attached as a redacted version to their reply. Despite not having Sabre's written consent for withdrawal, the plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The court granted both the motion to submit the declaration under seal and the motion to withdraw without substitution. The withdrawal of an attorney in this jurisdiction requires compliance with Local Civil Rule 83.6, which mandates a formal motion if the client does not consent and is unrepresented. The rule stipulates that such a motion must serve notice to all parties and include a certificate of service with the client’s last known address, advising the client to seek new counsel or to notify the Clerk if they wish to object to the withdrawal. The decision to allow an attorney's motion to withdraw is at the district court's discretion, which may deny the motion if it risks undue trial delays, unfair prejudice to any party, or is contrary to the interests of justice. Relevant factors for consideration include the case's duration, the time needed for a party to find new counsel, and the financial burden on the attorney if they continue representation. Confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship is often preserved by filing withdrawal motions under seal. In this case, Moving Attorneys argue that their withdrawal will not delay proceedings or prejudice any party, citing minimal pre-trial activity and a lack of a set trial date, along with a proposed 45-day continuance for Sabre to find new counsel. They claim breakdowns in communication and irreconcilable differences with Sabre, which create a financial burden for continued representation. Conversely, Torres opposes the motion, arguing the reasons for withdrawal are vague, suggesting that withdrawal without substitution would unduly delay the case. Torres contends that Sabre, as a corporation, cannot represent itself and urges the court to dismiss the case or enter a default judgment if withdrawal is permitted. Additionally, Torres calls for the attorneys to post a bond or payment to the court’s registry to cover potential liability. The court has agreed to allow the submission of Mr. Mills' declaration under seal for in camera review. The Supreme Court has endorsed the practice of in camera inspection for documents subject to privilege claims, allowing courts to evaluate the basis for motions to withdraw without breaching attorney-client confidentiality. Numerous cases highlight the judicial approval of reviewing sealed affidavits when assessing such motions. In this instance, the Court reviewed a confidential declaration from Mr. Mills, which was found to contain privileged information relevant to the attorney-client relationship between Sabre and Moving Attorneys. Since there were no objections from Torres regarding the sealing of the declaration, the Court approved the motion to file it under seal. Regarding the motion to withdraw, the Court analyzed the factors outlined in Local Civil Rule 83.6 and pertinent case law. The declaration indicated irreconcilable differences and financial burdens that justified the withdrawal. Additionally, Sabre has reportedly settled the case with the assistance of Virginia counsel, leading to a joint motion for dismissal with prejudice. Consequently, the Court determined that there was no need to consider the time required for Sabre to obtain new counsel, nor would withdrawal prejudice any party. The motion to withdraw was granted, along with the request to file the declaration confidentially. An order reflecting this decision will be issued separately. Dated: November 29, 2016 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge