Caylor v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 10 MOTION by Sanders Viener Grossman, LLP to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Nelda Caylor is DENIED; plaintiff's counsel is directed to send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested, and file a copy of the receipt. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/12/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE: C.R. BARD, INC.,
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL 2187

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Caylor v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-06317

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record, filed by
counsel for the plaintiff on January 31, 2018 [ECF No. 10]. Neither the plaintiff nor
the defendant has filed an opposition, and the time to file a response has expired.
Thus, the matter is ripe for adjudication.
According to the attached motion to withdraw, Randi Kassan and Marc
Grossman of Sanders Viener Grossman, LLP seek leave to withdraw as counsel under
Local Civil Rule 83.4. 1 As justification for the withdrawal, counsel state that an
irreconcilable conflict exists between attorney and client, without elaborating further.
The court does not find counsels’ appraisal of how this case should proceed, and
the subsequent disapproval by the plaintiff, as adequate grounds for withdrawal. By
agreeing to appear on behalf of the plaintiff’s interest in this case, counsel accepted
the ethical responsibility to pursue this matter diligently and through to its

In moving for relief, counsel cite incorrectly to Local Rule of Criminal Procedure 44.4, which is
inapplicable to this civil case. For purposes of review, the court considered the motion under the
correct local civil rule.
1

conclusion. Model Code of Prof’l Responsibility r. 1.3 (Am. Bar Ass’n 1980). Similar
ethical considerations “confer[] upon the client the ultimate authority to determine
the purposes to be served by legal representation.” Id. at r. 1.2. Attorneys, on the
other hand, are obliged to “abide by a client’s decisions” concerning the objectives of
representation. Id. (emphasis added). Fundamental disagreements with a client

permits an attorney to withdraw from the representation in certain cases, such as
cases wherein the disagreement is irreconcilable. Here, the court is reluctant to grant
counsels’ request as it is certain to disrupt the effective administration of justice given
the impending discovery deadlines and the lack of remaining counsel. Furthermore,
the court is not convinced that the present, as described by counsel, is a sufficient
basis to support a finding that irreconcilable differences exist between counsel and
the plaintiff. Without more, I find that counsel has failed to demonstrate the requisite
good cause to withdraw as counsel under Local Rule 83.4.
I.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as

Attorney of Record [ECF No. 10] is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s
counsel send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt
requested, and file a copy of the receipt. The court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send
a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

March 12, 2018