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

Summary

An Order in United States of America v. Gladys Harun, CR 323-003 (Doc. 11 in Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Dublin Division, entered at Augusta, Georgia and filed July 11, 2023. The order recites that Harun was charged on July 13, 2022 in a seven-count Indictment, that Attorneys Teri L. Thompson and Mohammed S. Luwemba were substituted as defense counsel for Attorney Dale Robert Busbee in February of 2023, and that Harun pled guilty to an Information on April 27, 2023. It states that the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record filed by Thompson on July 7, 2023 is equivocal as to who seeks withdrawal and has no affirmative statement from the Defendant. Citing the Notice to Retained Criminal Defense Attorneys, the order says that non-payment of fees cannot justify withdrawal, and it denies the motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

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)