A federal judge granted permission to Paula Jones' lawyers to withdraw as attorneys for her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. Attorneys Joseph Cammarata and Gilbert Davis cited "fundamental differences of opinion ... as to the future course of this litigation" as the reason behind their request. The following is the motion and the judge's order granted on September 9, 1997.
In the United States district Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division
PAULA CORBIN JONES, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON et al.,
Defendants.
No. LR-c-94-290
MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5(f) of the Rules of this Court, Gilbert K. Davis and Joseph Cammarata respectfully move this Court for leave to withdraw their appearances as counsel for plaintiff. The grounds for this motion are set forth in the accompanying memorandum.
Respectfully submitted,
Gilbert K. Davis
9524-C Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(703)-352-3850
Joseph Cammarata
Suite 1401
1725 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20006-1401
(202) 429-4560
Counsel for Plaintiff Paula Corbin Jones
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5(f) of the Rules of this Court, Gilbert K. Davis and Joseph Cammarata have respectfully moved this Court for leave to withdraw their appearance as counsel for plaintiff. This motion should be granted for reasons set forth in this memorandum.
BACKGROUND
Movants Gilbert K. Davis and Joseph Cammarata are members of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Virginia who have been permitted to represent plaintiff in this proceeding pro hac vice. Movants Davis and Cammarata have diligently and effectively represented Ms. Jones for over three years, during which Movants have briefed and argued motions in this Court, an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, and a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States.
In addition to successfully representing Ms. Jones before the Supreme Court of the United States, Movants have most recently (I) appeared at this court's scheduling conference on August 22, 1007; (ii) briefed and argued, with substantial success, against the comprehensive motion to dismiss filed by one of the defendants, and (ii) briefed certain discovery matters pending in this Court and elsewhere involving [arty and non-party discovery.
REASONS FOR THE MOTION
Notwithstanding Movants' successful representation of Ms. Jones to date, certain fundamental differences of opinion have arisen between Movants, on the one hand, and plaintiff, on the other hand, as to the future course of this litigation. These differences of opinion are so basic to the issues involved in this action, and to professional ethical obligations of Movants, as to compel Movants to withdraw from representation.
Movants seek to withdraw on the grounds that one or more of the circumstances set forth in Virginia Disciplinary Rule 2-108(B) permit withdrawal of representation by leave of court after notice to the client under paragraph (C), of the rule (see attached.) That rule provides:
Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(1) Withdrawal can be effected without material prejudice to the client; or
(2) The client persists in a course of conduct involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is illegal or unjust; or
(3) The client fails to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and such failure continues after reasonable notice to the client; or
(4) The representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer of has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client.
The presence of one of these circumstances is sufficient grounds to permit withdrawal.
Plaintiff has been informed, in writing, of the full and complete basis on which Movants seek withdrawal, as well as the intention of Movants to file the motion. Movants have advised plaintiff, in writing, of the need to seek alternative counsel immediately, so that she may expeditiously proceed with her case should this court grant Movants' request for withdrawal as counsel. Plaintiff has not yet apprised Movants whether plaintiff will oppose this motion to withdraw.
The trial date in this action was set less than two weeks ago, and essentially no substantive or substantial discovery has been completed. None of the parties and no third-party witnesses have been deposed. Defendant's responses to initial discovery are not completed. The parties' anticipated discovery has not been noticed. Withdrawal by the Movants at this early stage of the litigation will not prejudice Ms. Jones. Since withdrawal can be affected "without material prejudice to the client," Movants ask that the Court grant this motion to withdraw, Movants respectfully request leave to present such information in camera and under seal.
After withdrawal, Ms. Jones will remain represented by current Arkansas counsel. Given the high profile this case has assumed, Movants believe Ms. Jones may quickly obtain alternative counsel. Further, at Movants' suggestion, Movants believe that Ms. Jones has already consulted other counsel on the reasons which prompt this motion to withdraw and on representing her in the litigation.
Movants emphasize that, in addition to subpart (1), this motion is based on differences of opinion between Movants and plaintiff as to litigation strategy and related matters, specifically subparts(2), (3), and (4) of Rule 2-108(B). The filing of this motion has nothing to do with the legal merits of plaintiff's claims on which Movants continue to have full confidence.
CONCLUSION
Gilbert K. Davis and Joseph Cammarata respectfully request that their motion for leave to withdraw their appearance as counsel for plaintiff be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Gilbert K. Davis
9524-C Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(703) 352-3850
Joseph Cammarata
Suite 1401
1725 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1401
(202) 429-4560
ORDER
Before the Court is a motion by Gilbert K. Davis and Joseph Cammarata for leave to withdraw their appearance as counsel for plaintiff Paula Corbin Jones. The Court held a telephone conference on this motion with the parties in camera and under seal on the evening of September 8, 1997. Having carefully considered the matter, the Court finds that the motion to withdraw by Mr. Davis and Mr. Cammarata should be and hereby is granted. Mr. Davis and Mr. Cammarata are both entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for their zealous and effective representation of plaintiff to date. All deadlines contained in the Court's scheduling order filed on August 26, 1997, including the trial date, the date for completion of discovery, and the motions deadline, shall remain in place.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of September 1997.
/s/
Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
