Filing 54

MOTION and Statement of Points and Authorities to Withdraw as Counsel by ADSURFDAILY, INC., THOMAS A. BOWDOIN, JR, BOWDOIN HARRIS ENTERPRISES, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fayad, Michael) Modified on 4/3/2009 to enhance text(rdj).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 8 GILCREASE LANE, QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 et al Doc. 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 8 GILCREASE LANE, QUINCY FLORIDA 32351, and ONE CONDO LOCATED ON NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD IN MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA, and ALL FUNDS, INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY $53 MILLION, HELD ON DEPOSIT AT BANK OF AMERICA ACCOUNTS IN THE NAMES OF (1) THOMAS A. BOWDOIN, JR., SOLE PROPRIETOR, DBA ADSURFDAILY, (2) CLARENCE BUSBY, JR. AND DAWN STOWERS, DBA GOLDEN PANDA AD BUILDER, AND (3) GOLDEN PANDA AD BUILDER, Defendants, and ADSURFDAILY, INC., THOMAS A. BOWDOIN, JR., AND BOWDOIN HARRIS ENTERPRISES, INC. , Claimants. Case: 1:08-cv-01345 Hon. Rosemary M. Collyer MOTION AND STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL {TY064145;1} Dockets.Justia.com The Akerman Senterfitt Law Firm (the "Firm") and its lawyers (including Michael Fayad and Jonathan Goodman), pursuant to the Local Rules of The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia for civil proceedings ("LCvR") 83.6 (c), hereby files its Motion to Withdraw as counsel in this case, and; herein responds to the Court's Order of March 26, 2009. As grounds for this motion, counsel states the following: The Akerman Senterfitt law firm previously filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of AdSurfDaily, Inc., Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises, Inc. and Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., who then intervened in this case by filing verified claims. After this Court denied Claimant's Emergency Motion for Return of Seized Funds, the client-lawyer relationship between the Firm and all three Claimants substantially deteriorated and has not improved thus rendering the representation unreasonably difficult. See District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, including comments (D.C. Rules") 1.0 and 1.16. Given the attorney-client privilege, the Akerman Senterfitt law firm cannot disclose the specific issues underlying the problems with the client-lawyer relationship. However, without breaching the attorney-client relationship, and based on documents which Mr. Bowdoin publicly filed with the clerk's office, it is obvious that Claimants have decided to represent themselves without consulting their counsel. By way of example only, Mr. Bowdoin has recently filed, on a pro se basis, a series of motions. Mr. Bowdoin filed these motions without consulting with counsel and without bothering to advise counsel that he would be submitting motions on his own. Under these circumstances, the Akerman Senterfitt Law Firm cannot render effective assistance of counsel. See D.C. Rule 1,16;LCvR 83.6 (c) and (d). The Akerman Senterfitt law firm has recently been able to contact its clients and has obtained their consent to withdraw from representing them. {TY064145;1} 2 In addition, Akerman Senterfitt's two corporate clients have been specifically advised that they cannot appear as litigants in this Court on a pro se basis and that they must have counsel. Through their principal, Mr. Bowdoin, the two corporate clients provided written acknowledgment of their understanding of this legal rule. A trial date has not yet been set and there are no scheduling issues which would militate against the granting of this Motion to Withdraw. Further, granting this motion will not be unfairly prejudicial to any party nor otherwise be contrary to the interests of justice. See LCvR 83.6 (d). This motion is not being filed for impermissible reasons of delay. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Akerman Senterfitt law firm respectfully requests entry of an order granting leave to withdraw from its representation of Adsurfdaily, Inc., Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises, Inc. and Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr. in this case and discharging Akerman Senterfitt from all further responsibilities as counsel for these three Claimants. A proposed order is attached. Respectfully submitted, AKERMAN SENTERFITT Counsel for Claimants 8100 Boone Boulevard Suite 700 Vienna, VA 22182-2683 phone: 703 790-8750 or 800 480-8750 fax: 703 448-1801 Email: michael.fayad@akerman.com By: and s/Michael L. Fayad Dist. of Columbia Bar Number: 91694 {TY064145;1} 3 Jonathan Goodman, Esq.1 Florida Bar No. 371912 AKERMAN SENTERFITT One S. E. Third Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, FL 33131-1714 Phone: (305) 374-5600 Fax: (305) 374-5095 Email: jonathan.goodman@akerman.com 1 Mr. Goodman has been permitted to appear pro hac vice. {TY064145;1} 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of April, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. AUSA William R. Cowden Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Asset Forfeiture Unit 555 4th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-0258 (202) 514-8707 (fax) william.cowden@usdoj.gov Jonathan W. Emord, Esq. Emord & Associates, P.C. 11808 Wolf Run Lane Clifton, VA 20124 (202) 466-6937 (202) 466-6938 (fax) jemord@emord.com (counsel for Golden Panda Ad Building and Clarence Busby, Jr.) Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr. 8 Gilcrease Lane Quincy, FL 32351 (Via U.S. Mail) 850 363-9602 AdSurfDaily, Inc. c/o Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr. 8 Gilcrease Lane Quincy, FL 32351 (Via U.S. Mail) Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises c/o Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr. 8 Gilcrease Lane Quincy, FL 32351 (Via U.S. Mail) s/Michael L. Fayad {TY064145;1} 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?