Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
17
Defendant.
18
19
Defendant, DANIEL YOUNG (Young) appearing pro se moves the Court to
20
enter an Order and remove Defendants attorney Lyndon Steimel and instead allow
21
22 Defendant to proceed as Pro Se on all future matters pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 5.1
23 and the Professional Rules of Conduct E.R. 1.16(a). This Motion is supported by the
24
accompanying Memorandum of Law and all documents on file with the Court.
25
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
26
27
Defendant files this Motion requesting that the Court enter an Order removing his
28 attorney of record, Lyndon Steimel (Attorney), and allow him to proceed pro se in lieu of
1
substitution of another attorney. The basis for this Motion is exclusively due to the
1
2 Attorneys ethical violations and misconduct violating attorney-client agreement which has
3 deprived Defendant to proper representation. The Attorney after Defendant has requested
4
has refused to file a Notice of Withdrawal whereby Defendant now brings this matter directly
5
before the Court as the trial has been scheduled for August 1, 2016.
6
7
I. FACTS
8 Plaintiff brought this cause of action over the validity of a Quit Claim Deed for
9 property owned by Plaintiff and Defendant Laura Amundson during their marriage which
10
was distributed under a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Plaintiff also included Defendant
11
into this action improperly based on the fact that Defendant subsequently married Defendant
12
13 Amundson. Defendant made his initial appearance in this action and filed his Answer to
19 From that time to the present, the actions by the Attorney in his representation of
20 Defendant have violated professional ethical standards and specifically, his misconduct
21
violates:
22
1) E.R. 1.4 Communication (informed consent)
23
In this case the Attorney stipulated to dismissal of third party Defendants
24
2
The Attorney has delayed and requested numerous extensions to complete
1
7
Deed which is a critical document to the issues before this Court.
19 the parties in an attorney-client relationship and Defendant has shown many violations. As
20 such, Defendant is entitled to discharge his Attorney under the provisions of E.R. 1.16(d)(4)
21
at any time, with or without cause. See, In State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. St.
22
Joseph's Hospital, 107 Ariz. 498, 489 P.2d 837 (1971), the Supreme Court noted: . . . the law
23
in Arizona is clear that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
24
25 relationship at any time with or without cause. . . and may without the consent of his attorney
26 settle and compromise his claim with his adversary . . . we . . . reaffirm the power of the
27
client at any time to discharge his attorney and to settle or compromise his own claim. Our
28
3
law does not bind a person to one attorney merely because he has entered into a contingent
1
2 fee relationship.
3 Further, once a decision has been made that the attorney-client relationship is broken
4
and one party has terminates -client agreement, the Court governs withdrawal by approval
5
which is provided at A.R.C.P. Rule 5.1(a)(2)(A) states:
6
7
(A) Where such application bears the written approval of the
client, it shall be accompanied by a proposed written order and
8 may be presented to the court ex parte. The withdrawing attorney
shall give prompt notice of the entry of such order, together with
9 the name and residence of the client, to all other parties or
10
their attorneys.
11 In this case, the requirement for client approval is a non-issue as Defendant has
12
discharged his attorney and provided proper notice. The then remaining relevant issue that
13
the Court must consider in determining approval is that the trial in this matter has been
14
scheduled and Rule 5.1(a)(2)(C) further provides:
15
22 Once again, in the instant case, Defendant is prepared to move forward to the trial
23 without attorney representation and proceed pro se and has made arrangements for non-
24
attorney legal assistance for document preparation as necessary. Further, If a defendant
25
makes a timely and unequivocal request to proceed pro se, the court must grant that request if
26
27
it finds the request was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. See, Lamar, 205
28 Ariz. at 435-36, 22, 72 P.3d at 835-36 (stating upon compliance with requirements request
4
to proceed pro se should be granted) citing Armant v. Marquez, 772 F.2d 552, 555 (9th Cir.
1
7
his right to obtain substitution of counsel and is entitled to proceed pro se as Courts have
13 (1985).
14 III. CONCLUSION
15
Based on the Attorneys failure to participate in any meaningful discovery, including
16
disclosure of critical evidence Defendant has been prejudiced and denied his due process to
17
18
the right to effective representation. Further, Defendant has undergone extreme emotional
19 stress caused by the Attorney and his damages as a result go beyond improper representation
20 and warrant a separate cause of action for malicious representation. Accordingly,
21
Defendants request to proceed pro se should be granted as he can suffer no worse
22
prejudice than already suffered.
23
24 WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court remove Attorney Lyndon Steimel
25 as his attorney of record and order Defendant to proceed pro se and for such other or
26
further relief as the Court deems proper.
27
DATED this 26th day of June, 2016.
28
5
1
/s/ Daniel Young
2 DANIEL YOUNG, Pro Se
3
Defendant
6
Original e-filed with the Clerk this
7 26th day of June, 2016; with a copy
*delivered electronically to:
8
16 Lisa M. Montes
233 N. 3rd Street., #100
17
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
18 Attorney for Plaintiff
19
/s/ Daniel Young
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28