JENKINS

v.

AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Counsel for Plaintiff's (“Counsel") Motion to Withdraw (the “Motion”), ECF No. [43]. The Honorable Joan A. Lenard has referred this matter to me “to hold a hearing and determine the [] Motion to Withdraw and all related motions and pleadings." ECF No. [44]. After holding hearings on this matter, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 27, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, seeking leave to withdraw pursuant to Rules 4-1.16(a)(1) and 4-1.16(b)(1)(2)(4) and (5) of the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct. See generally ECF No. [43]. First — in accordance with Rule 4-1.16(a)(1), counsel asserts that she must terminate her representation of Plaintiff, Courtney Jenkins (“Plaintiff”), because her failure to terminate would result in a breach of the duty of candor to the Court. See ECF No. [43] at ¶ 1-2. Counsel asked to be relieved of the duty to serve Plaintiff's sworn Answers to Interrogatories on Defendant consistent with the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct. See id. at ¶ 5. Second in

CASE NO. 23-CV-24501-LENARD/Elfenbein

accordance with Rules 4-1.16(b)(1),(2),(4), and (5), counsel maintains that her withdrawal is permissible under the rules because she “has advanced Plaintiff's case to a posture where withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effects to [Plaintiff's] interests.” Id. at ¶ 4. Specifically, counsel states that she "prepared and served on Defendant Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production” and “served on Defendant Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Request for Production, along with Plaintiff's document production.” Id. Counsel also notes that trial in this case “is not scheduled to take place until the Court's two-week calendar commencing March 24, 2025." Id.

In anticipation of counsel's filing, Plaintiff filed an affidavit on May 21, 2024, opposing the Motion on the ground that counsel's withdrawal would be “unfair and detrimental to [her] case" because she would be left “without ample time to find new representation” before her scheduled "depositions and mediation[.]” ECF No. [42] at 2-3; see generally ECF No. [46] at 2- 3. Plaintiff also opposes the Motion on the ground that counsel purportedly misappropriated the legal fees Plaintiff paid her. See ECF No. [42] at 23, 26; see generally ECF No. [46] at 2-3.

Pursuant to Judge Lenard's Order of Referral, the Court held a hearing on the Motion on June¹⁰, 2024. See ECF No. [48]. During that hearing, Plaintiff presented evidence of a $5,000.00 fee received by counsel but unaccounted for in counsel's explanation of legal services rendered. See ECF No. [46] at 7-8. Upon presentation of that evidence, the Court continued the hearing so that counsel could review her financial records and provide the Court with an explanation for the unaccounted-for $5,000.00 payment. The Court held a second hearing on June 13, 2024, during which counsel accounted for all fees associated with her representation of Plaintiff in this case under the retainer agreement and explained that certain payments were unrelated to her representation in this lawsuit and were instead related to a complaint she filed on Plaintiff's behalf

2

CASE NO. 23-CV-24501-LENARD/Elfenbein

before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See id. at 7. With that accounting, the Court cross-referenced Plaintiff's payment receipts with the retainer agreement and counsel's written explanation of legal services rendered and concluded that Plaintiff did not make an overpayment.

II. DISCUSSION

The Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida provide that “no attorney shall withdraw the attorney's appearance in any action or proceeding except by leave of Court after notice served on the attorney's client and opposing counsel." S.D. Fla. L. R. 11.1(d)(3)(A). It is within a district court's discretion to permit or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Patnaude v. Sears Pest Control, Inc., No. 08-CV-61980, 2009 WL 10667065, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2009); Reagan v. TitleMax of Ala., Inc., No. 09-CV-912010 WL 11530503, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2010). “Before granting an attorney's motion to withdraw, however, ‘it is incumbent on the court to assure that the prosecution of the lawsuit before it is not disrupted by the withdrawal of counsel, and that the withdrawal of counsel is for good cause.” Patnaude, 2009 WL 10667065, at *2 (quoting Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat'l Labʼys, 711 F. 2d 1510, 1521-22 (11th Cir. 1983)).

First, counsel has demonstrated good cause for her withdrawal. As discussed at the June

3

CASE NO. 23-CV-24501-LENARD/Elfenbein

Plaintiff's attorney. Additionally, as stated in her filings and her arguments at the Hearings, Plaintiff mistakenly assumes that she overpaid counsel for her legal services and, based on that belief, refuses to pay counsel her agreed-upon fee going forward. Plaintiff's refusal to pay counsel further supports my finding that good cause exists for her withdrawal at this juncture. See In re Egwim, 291 B.R. 559, 575 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2003) (“[A] lawyer is not required, of course, to provide services without compensation.")

Having found that good cause exists for counsel's withdrawal, the Court must now determine whether the withdrawal would prejudice Plaintiff or delay her ongoing lawsuit; the Court finds that it would not. As previously discussed, counsel has “prepared and served on Defendant Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production” and “served on Defendant Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Request for Production, along with Plaintiff's document production." ECF No. [43] at ¶ 4. Moreover, the trial in this case is not scheduled to begin for another nine months. See id. While it is true that a second mediation is scheduled to take place in this case on June 27, 2024, [fn 1] counsel has otherwise advanced this case to a posture where her withdrawal would not materially prejudice Plaintiff or delay the prosecution of this case. Moreover, counsel leaves Plaintiff ample time to retain new representation. But cf. Reagan, 2010 WL 11530503, at *1 (“When an attorney moves to withdraw on the eve of trial, it is generally denied."). In sum, considering all factors and weighing the interests of all parties, the Motion can be granted without prejudicing Plaintiff or delaying trial.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Leslie Holland's Motion to Withdraw, ECF No. [43], is GRANTED. Leslie Holland is hereby TERMINATED

4

CASE NO. 23-CV-24501-LENARD/Elfenbein

as counsel of record for Plaintiff Courtney Jenkins. Plaintiff Courtney Jenkins shall have until and including July 12, 2024, to hire new counsel as evidenced by a Notice of Appearance on the record or file a notice of her intention to proceed pro se. Unless and until Plaintiff Courtney Jenkins hires new counsel, all filings SHALL be mailed to her address of record: 9401 Northwest 26th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33147, and e-mailed to: [email protected].

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on June 14, 2024.

MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENΒΕΙΝ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: All Counsel of Record

Courtney Jenkins, pro se 9401 Northwest 26th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147

5

[fn 1]: The deadline to complete this mediation is September 1, 2024. ECF No. [30].