Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Grider v. Clark County Collection Service, LLC, 2:13-cv-01731-KJD-CWH. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20170315e24 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2017
Summary: MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , District Judge . The law firm of Holland & Hart LLP, on behalf of its former associate, Nicole E. Lovelock, hereby moves to withdraw Ms. Lovelock as an attorney of record for Defendants Clark County Collection Service, LLC, Dollar Loan Center, LLC, and DLC Empire, LLC ("Defendants"). This Motion is made pursuant to Local Rule IA 11-6(b) and is based upon the following memorandum of points and authorities, and any further papers, pleadings, o
More

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

The law firm of Holland & Hart LLP, on behalf of its former associate, Nicole E. Lovelock, hereby moves to withdraw Ms. Lovelock as an attorney of record for Defendants Clark County Collection Service, LLC, Dollar Loan Center, LLC, and DLC Empire, LLC ("Defendants"). This Motion is made pursuant to Local Rule IA 11-6(b) and is based upon the following memorandum of points and authorities, and any further papers, pleadings, or oral argument which this Court may consider.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. ARGUMENT

A. Applicable Legal Standard

Under the Court's Local Rules, an attorney may withdraw from representing a party by leave of court after notice is served on the affected client and opposing counsel. See LR IA 11-6(b). The Local Rules also require attorneys to adhere to the standards of conduct set forth in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted and amended by the Nevada Supreme Court. See LR IA 11-7(a). The Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, in turn, provide that a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if "[w]ithdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client" or "[o]ther good cause for withdrawal exists." See Nev. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 1.16(b)(1), (7).

B. Withdrawal Is Appropriate

In this case, good cause exists for Ms. Lovelock's withdrawal as counsel and said withdrawal will not have an adverse effect on the interests of Defendants. Ms. Lovelock is no longer assigned to this case as she has left the employ of Holland & Hart LLP. Defendants' interests will not be affected by Ms. Lovelock's withdrawal because Holland & Hart LLP, including Patrick J. Reilly, Esq., will continue to represent Defendants in this matter. Accordingly, all notice of filings and orders should no longer be directed to Ms. Lovelock and should be directed to Patrick J. Reilly, Esq. on behalf of Defendants.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court's permission for Ms. Lovelock to withdraw as counsel from this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer