Wells Fargo Bank v. Thelma Haywood, et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

On March 16, 2010, counsel for the defendant, Dana Wilson, filed a motion to withdraw appearance.   The office of Lawrence A. Levinson P.C. had entered into an agreement by letter dated November 5, 2008 to represent Ms. Wilson.   This retainer letter was signed by Ms. Wilson.   In accordance with the affidavit submitted by counsel, during the time period while counsel was representing Ms. Wilson, there were communication difficulties between Ms. Wilson and Attorney Gottlieb.   In fact, counsel indicates in his affidavit that Ms. Wilson did not provide documents as part of the discovery process and communicated with someone from the Commissioner for the State of Connecticut Department of Banking without his knowledge.   Additionally, Ms. Wilson's correspondence was provided to counsel for the plaintiff along with the documents she attached to her correspondence complaining about counsel and the procedure in this action.

As a result of the actions of Ms. Wilson and her opinion as to the quality of representation by Attorney Gottlieb, he has indicted in his affidavit that he is unable to continue representing Ms. Wilson because of a break down in any type of attorney client relationship.   He further contends that the firm and the client have a breakdown in communication relative to the litigation.   Although Ms. Wilson appeared at short calendar and objected to the court granting counsel's request to withdraw, her statements and the documents demonstrate a lack of trust, support and cooperation with her representation by Attorney Gottlieb.

Connecticut Practice Book Section 3-10 states in part:  “No motion for withdrawal of appearance shall be granted unless good cause is shown and until the judicial authority is satisfied that reasonable notice has been given to other attorneys of record and that the party represented by the attorney was served with motion and the notice required by this section ․”

This motion requires that the Court make a finding of good cause.   The motion submitted by Attorney Gottlieb does not in and of itself provide a complete basis for the granting of the motion.   However, at short calendar on May 24, 2010, Attorney Gottlieb provided an argument and an affidavit setting forth a number of difficulties and the inability to properly represent Ms. Wilson.   Of more significance, was the argument set forth by Ms. Wilson and the two documents she provided to the court as part of her argument.

The court is at a loss to understand the position of Ms. Wilson when she submits documents that contain comments such as, “These are lies to make me settle.”   Additionally, although represented by counsel, she expressed her intent to write to Attorney General Blumenthal and the Connecticut Department of Banking Government Relations.   Ms. Wilson expressed her displeasure with the representation of counsel and his communication with her.   She admitted that she does not intend to provide documents as advised by her counsel.

Clearly, this relationship between Ms. Wilson and Attorney Gottlieb has deteriorated to an extent that there is no trust.   In fact, Ms. Wilson implied such during her argument when she continued to argue that Attorney Gottlieb had failed to properly represent her and in fact that he was not providing proper representation of her.   She submitted a letter from counsel referring to a deposition as a trial.   She complained that he failed to give her basic information as to where she was to attend hearings or depositions.   The argument of Ms. Wilson confirms her negative attitude and lack of confidence directed to the law firm.

Based upon the affidavit, the exhibits submitted by both parties and the argument of the defendant and her counsel, the court finds there is good cause to grant the motion to withdraw the appearance of the law firm of Lawrence Levinson, P.C. The motion is granted.

THE COURT

Brazzel-Massaro, J.

Brazzel-Massaro, Barbara, J.