Lo v. United States of America et al

Filing 114

ORDER granting Plaintiff Counsel Reid's 110 Corrected Motion for Withdrawal of Attorney. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH)

Case 2:17-cv-01202-TL Document 114 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

KA WAI JIMMY LO,
v.

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-01202-TL
Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

15
16
17

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff’s counsel Michael Reid to

18

withdraw as counsel (the “Motion to Withdraw”). Dkt. No. 110. The Court has reviewed the

19

Motion to Withdraw and the relevant record. As Plaintiff is represented by multiple attorneys

20

from different firms and granting the Motion to Withdraw will not leave Plaintiff without

21

representation, see Dkt. No. 110 at 2, leave of the Court is not required for Mr. Reid to withdraw

22

from the case. See LCR 83.2(b)(3).

23
24

The Motion to Withdraw fails to fully satisfy the technical requirements of Local Civil
Rule 83.2(b)(3), namely for its failure to include the signatures of Plaintiff’s remaining counsel.
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL - 1

Case 2:17-cv-01202-TL Document 114 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 2

1

See LCR 83.2(b)(3) (“The [Notice of Withdrawal] shall be signed by the withdrawing attorney(s)

2

and the remaining attorney(s) of record . . . .”). However, Mr. Reid represents that Plaintiff, co-

3

counsel Anthony Marsh of Hermann Law Group, and defense counsel have consented to

4

Mr. Reid’s withdrawal from the case. Dkt. No. 110 at 2. Co-counsel Xi Wang, who has also

5

appeared in the case as counsel for Plaintiff, is a colleague of Mr. Marsh who has not personally

6

consented to Mr. Reid’s withdrawal. However, lawyers of the same firm are ordinarily treated as

7

one lawyer. See Wash. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.10, cmt. 2 (noting “the premise that a firm of

8

lawyers is essentially one lawyer” in the context of duties of client loyalty). In addition, Ms. Xi

9

was served with the Motion to Withdraw via ECF notification, see Dkt. No. 110 at 3, and had an

10

opportunity to object, which she has not done. Accordingly, and in light of Mr. Reid’s significant

11

and potentially debilitating health problems, see Dkt. No. 110 at 2, the Court finds that these

12

errors are non-prejudicial and excusable in this instance.

13
14

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Reid’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Dkt.
No. 110) is GRANTED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 7th day of February 2022.

17

A

18

Tana Lin
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL - 2