Carpenters' District Council Of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity et al v. F.G. Lancia Custom Woodworking, LLC

Filing 147

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall obtain new counsel and defendants' substitute counsel shall enter an appearance on their behalf by December 30, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorneys David W . Forth and Michael H. James shall provide a copy of this Order to the defendants and file a notice with the Court certifying that they have done so, by December 9, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon the entry of substitute counsel, or i f no such entry occurs, on or after January 4, 2016, the Court will issue a ruling on the merits of the motions to withdraw of attorneys David W. Forth, Michael H. James and the law firm of the law firm of James, Hutchison & Forth, P.C. Response to Court due by 12/30/2015.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 11/30/2015. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CARPENTERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
F.G. LANCIA CUSTOM WOODWORKING, )
LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 4:06-CV-1673 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on motions for leave to withdraw as counsel for defendants
F.G. Lancia Custom Woodworking, LLC and Frank Lancia, individually, filed by attorneys David
W. Forth, Michael H. James, and the law firm of James, Hutchison & Forth, P.C. The motions state
that the defendants have been advised of the movants’ intention to withdraw from representation,
but do not state why counsel seek to withdraw. Nor do the motions attempt to show good cause for
withdrawal or assert that withdrawal will not cause material adverse effects on their clients’
interests.
Generally, the Court will not allow counsel to withdraw unless substitute counsel enters an
appearance for the client. This rule is especially significant in cases where the client is a corporation
or limited liability company. Such artificial entities can only act through agents, cannot appear pro
se, and must be represented by counsel. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02
(1993) (artificial entities may appear in federal courts only through licensed attorneys); see also
Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856-57 (8th Cir. 1996) (corporation was
technically in default as of the time its counsel withdrew).

This Court has adopted the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Missouri.
See E.D. Mo. L.R. 12.02. According to the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may withdraw
from representation of a client if the withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect
on the interests of the client, or if good cause for withdrawal exists. See Missouri Supreme Court
Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.16(b). Further, “a lawyer shall continue representation when
ordered to do so by a tribunal notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.” R.
Prof. Conduct 4-1.16(c).
One of the defendants represented by Messrs. Forth and James in this matter is a limited
liability company that cannot appear pro se. Therefore, this defendant must secure new counsel or
it will be unable to file any papers or motions.1 The Court will withhold ruling on the motions to
withdraw for a period of thirty days from the date of this order, to allow the defendants time to
obtain substitute counsel. If defendants fail to obtain substitute counsel within that time, the Court
will consider the merits of the motions to withdraw.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall obtain new counsel and defendants’
substitute counsel shall enter an appearance on their behalf by December 30, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorneys David W. Forth and Michael H. James shall
provide a copy of this Order to the defendants and file a notice with the Court certifying that they
have done so, by December 9, 2015.

1

A default judgment has already been entered against the defendants in this case. See Doc.
16. Therefore, unlike the situation in Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852,
856-57 (8th Cir. 1996), no Court action would be required as to defendant F. G. Lancia Custom
Woodworking, LLC, if counsel’s motions to withdraw are granted.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon the entry of substitute counsel, or if no such entry
occurs, on or after January 4, 2016, the Court will issue a ruling on the merits of the motions to
withdraw of attorneys David W. Forth, Michael H. James and the law firm of the law firm of James,
Hutchison & Forth, P.C.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 30th day of November, 2015.

3