Griffin v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/11/2019. (c/m 10/15/19 td for sat, Chambers) Modified date mailed to 10/15/19 on 10/11/2019 (tds, Deputy Clerk).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil Action No. DKC 18-1959
WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
transfer from Multidistrict Litigation No. 2329, In re: Wright
Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability
Counsel for Mr. Griffin, who had been representing
him in the MDL, moved to withdraw representation on August 6, 2019.
ECF No. 19.
On August 29, 2019, that motion was granted, with the
notation that local counsel, Jonathan Beiser, remained as counsel.
ECF No. 22.
Thereafter, Mr. Beiser moved to withdraw, stating
that he and his law firm acted solely as “local counsel” and were
not in a position to continue as sole counsel.
ECF No. 24.
Griffin wrote to the court, requesting that Mr. Beiser not be
allowed to withdraw because Plaintiff would not be able to secure
another attorney for this litigation.
ECF No. 27.
responded, again stating that he does not handle products liability
cases so that he would not provide appropriate representation.
advised that he has inquired of Mr. Houssiere whether he could
recommend alternative counsel.
ECF No. 28.
The motion to withdraw will be granted.
As this court stated
in Abbott v. Gordon, No. CIV.A. DKC 09-0372, 2010 WL 4183334, at
*1–2 (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2010):
The decision to grant or deny an attorney’s
motion to withdraw is committed to the
discretion of the district court. Whiting v.
Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999)
(citing Fleming v. Harris, 39 F.3d 905, 908
(8th Cir. 1994) and Washington v. Sherwin Real
Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir.
1982)). Pursuant to Local Rules 703 and 704,
lawyers practicing in this court are subject
to the Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.16 (substantially the same as the
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct),
which provide a benchmark for when withdrawal
may be permitted. Maryland Rule 16–812, MRPC
1.16 subsection (a) addresses mandatory
withdrawal, and subsection (b) addresses
permissive withdrawal. Subsection (b) states:
Except as stated in paragraph (c) a
lawyer may withdraw from representing a
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished
without material adverse effect on the
interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of
action involving the lawyer’s services
that the lawyer reasonably believes is
criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer’s
services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon action or
inaction that the lawyer considers
repugnant or with which the lawyer has a
(5) the client fails substantially to
fulfill an obligation to the lawyer
regarding the lawyer’s services and has
been given reasonable warning that the
obligation is fulfilled;
(6) the representation will result in an
unreasonable financial burden on the
lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably
difficult by the client; or
Md Rule 16–812, MRPC 1.16(b). Subsection (c)
permission of a tribunal when terminating
representation. When ordered to do so by a
representation notwithstanding good cause for
Here, the primary, out of state, attorney who was representing Mr.
Griffin in the MDL has already withdrawn, without objection by
Plaintiff, and Mr. Beiser, who only participated as local counsel,
is not in a position to provide appropriate representation going
The record reflects that Mr. Griffin was advised some
time ago that his primary counsel would be moving to withdraw and
that he should make efforts to secure alternate representation if
withdrawal, the record does not reflect any reason for it.
notice was given to Plaintiff, however, and his concern over being
able to secure alternate counsel does not justify requiring local
counsel to remain in the case.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
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?