Order Denying Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record — USA v. Harun (S.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · No. 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE · Doc. 11 · 2023-07-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION

+ ¢ Q- =

‘ ae

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * Xf
Vv. * CR 323-003 ,
*
GLADYS HARUN x
ORDER

On July 13, 2022, Defendant Gladys Harun was charged ina
seven-count Indictment for the offenses of false declaration, wire

fraud, and money laundering. (United States v. Harun, Case No.

3:22-CR-009 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 13, 2022).) In February of 2023,
Attorneys Teri L. Thompson and Mohammed S. Luwemba were substituted
as defense counsel for Attorney Dale Robert Busbee.? At the time,
Defendant Harun signed the Consent Order Granting Substitution of
Attorney. (Id., Doc. No. 86.) Mr. Luwemba was admitted pro hac
vice. (id.., Doe. Ne. 87...)

Defendant pled guilty to an Information in the captioned case

on April 27, 2023. Both Mr. Luwemba and Ms. Thompson appeared on

1 Mr. Busbee had replaced Defendant’s original counsel, Attorney
Jimmy Thomas Howell, Jr., in September of 2022. (Case No. 3:22-
CR-009, Doc. No. 61.)

Defendant’s behalf at the Rule 11 colloquy. Defendant is in
custody and awaiting sentencing.

On July 7, 2023, Ms. Thompson filed a “Motion to Withdraw as
Attorney of Record.” (Doc. No. 10.) The request for withdrawal,
however, is equivocal as to who is seeking withdrawal: Ms.
Thompson, Mr. Luwemba, or both.? That aside, the motion does not
provide any affirmative statement from Defendant herself
respecting her intent and reasons therefor. Counsel simply states
Defendant is terminating “his” services and is refusing to pay
“him” as agreed. (Id. 44 4 & 5.)

First, Attorneys Thompson and Luwemba received the following
“Notice to Retained Criminal Defense Attorneys” upon their entry
into the case:

Retained criminal defense attorneys are expected to

make financial arrangements satisfactory to themselves

and sufficient to provide for representation of each

defendant until the conclusion of the defendant’s case.

An attorney’s appearance on behalf of a party

constitutes an affirmative representation of the

fulfillment of such expectation. . . . Ordinarily, a

defendant's failure to pay sums owed for attorney’s fees

or counsel’s failure to collect a sum sufficient to

compensate for all services will not constitute good
cause for withdrawal.

2 While Ms. Thompson filed the motion, the motion itself speaks
of Mr. Luwemba’s representation by reference to “his services,”
“payling] him,” and “permitting him to withdraw.” (Doc. No. 10.)
Yet, the motion references both attorneys in the opening paragraph,
stating that undersigned counsel file “their Motion to Withdraw as
Attorneys of Record.” (Id. (emphasis added) .)

2 :

(Case No. 3:22-CR-009, Doc. No. 89.) Thus, the non-payment of
fees cannot serve as justification for withdrawal.

Second, the Court will require something akin to
irreconcilable differences to warrant defense counsel’s release
from the case at this late juncture. Here, the Court has no
indication of the nature of the relationship between counsel and
Defendant; as stated, there is no expression at all from Defendant.

In short, and upon the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion
to withdraw (doc. no. 10) because of the deficiencies noted above.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this 11t day of July,

2023.

ATES DISTRICT

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.11.0.pdf

Size

310,075 bytes

SHA-256

7e7fdf3dc333b4958526088902d31d2dbbae3413a5695d6e94d2f14d9c2ee7fc

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.11.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)