JOHNSON v. AT&T CORPORATION, 4:14-CV-697 RLW. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20150116j91
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Change of Pro-Bono Attorney Motion for Assignment of New Pro-Bono (ECF No. 62) and Andrew Welker's Motion and Memorandum to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs Carlyn M. Johnson and Carol Johnson (ECF No. 67). The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion on January 6, 2015. (ECF No. 68). The Court ordered Plaintiffs and Mr. Welker to discuss the possibility of his continued represe
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Change of Pro-Bono Attorney Motion for Assignment of New Pro-Bono (ECF No. 62) and Andrew Welker's Motion and Memorandum to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs Carlyn M. Johnson and Carol Johnson (ECF No. 67). The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion on January 6, 2015. (ECF No. 68). The Court ordered Plaintiffs and Mr. Welker to discuss the possibility of his continued represen..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Change of Pro-Bono Attorney Motion for Assignment of New Pro-Bono (ECF No. 62) and Andrew Welker's Motion and Memorandum to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs Carlyn M. Johnson and Carol Johnson (ECF No. 67). The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion on January 6, 2015. (ECF No. 68). The Court ordered Plaintiffs and Mr. Welker to discuss the possibility of his continued representation. On January 13, 2005, Mr. Welker filed a status report. (ECF No. 69). Therein, Mr. Welker stated that he had met with the Plaintiffs. Mr. Welker stated that Plaintiffs remain dissatisfied with Mr. Welker's representation but that they wished for Mr. Welker to continue representing him, rather than to represent themselves. Mr. Welker indicated that he believed that the lack of trust in the attorney client relationship, as well as differences in opinion regarding the direction of the case, would make continued representation difficult.
The Court will deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Change of Pro-Bono Attorney Motion for Assignment of New Pro-Bono (ECF No. 62) and Andrew Welker's Motion and Memorandum to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs Carlyn M. Johnson and Carol Johnson (ECF No. 67) at this time. The Court finds that Plaintiffs still want Mr. Welker to continue as their counsel. The Court further believes that the attorney client relationship is not irrevocably broken. Both Plaintiffs and Mr. Welker have indicated a willingness to work together to resolve this case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Change of Pro-Bono Attorney Motion for Assignment of New Pro-Bono (ECF No. 62) and Andrew Welker's Motion and Memorandum to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs Carlyn M. Johnson and Carol Johnson (ECF No. 67) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Joint Motion to Set Aside and Revise Case Management Order (ECF No. 65), the parties shall submit a new proposed case management order within ten (10) days for the Court's consideration.
Source: Leagle
