United States District Court for the Eastern District — Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG, Document 33

Summary

An Order, Document 33, filed 08/04/21 in United States of America v. Jerel Andre Williams, Criminal No. 2:20-cr-00143-JMG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After consideration of the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 32), the order grants the motion, provides that Troy A. Archie and Tamika Mckoy shall not be required to perform further legal services for the defendant, and appoints the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to represent the defendant. A footnote states that on October 14, 2020 the United States filed a Superseding Indictment charging eight counts of mail fraud, one further mail fraud count and two counts of filing a false tax return, and quotes the motion's statement that fee obligations were not met. The order is signed /s/ John M. Gallagher.

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

Full text

            Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG Document 33 Filed 08/04/21 Page 1 of 2




                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                          :
                                                                  :
                                                                  :
                            v.                                    :         Criminal No. 2:20-cr-00143-JMG
                                                                  :
JEREL ANDRE WILLIAMS                                              :
                  Defendant.                                      :
_________________________________________

                                                        ORDER

         AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2021, after consideration of the Motion to Withdraw

as Counsel (ECF No. 32), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED,

and that Troy A. Archie and Tamika Mckoy shall not be required to perform any further legal

services for or represent Defendant Jerel Andre Williams in the above-captioned case.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Community Defender Office for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania is appointed to represent the Defendant in this action. 1


1
          On October 14, 2020, the United States of America filed a Superseding Indictment against Defendant Jerel
Andre Williams, charging him with: eight counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; one count of mail
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 3559(g); and two counts of filing a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 7206(1). See ECF No. 5. Tamika Mckoy had previously entered her appearance for Defendant, and, on October
23, 2020, we granted Troy Archie’s application for admission pro hac vice. See ECF Nos. 3, 7.

          On July 23, 2021, Archie and Mckoy filed a motion to withdraw as defense counsel, stating that “Mr.
Williams consistently has failed to meet certain financial obligations under the terms of [their] long-standing written
fee agreement, despite numerous oral and written requests that he do so since in or about April of 2021.” See ECF
No. 32 at 2. Defense counsel is “in a position of growing economic ‘conflict’ with Mr. Williams.” Id. at 3. Indeed,
Defendant has indicated that “he has no intention of providing additional legal fees for trial preparation or trial, despite
his intention to proceed to trial in this matter, and despite that he has no advance retainer fees currently maintained by
counsel.” Id. at 2. The Government does not oppose the motion.

          Under Local Criminal Rule 44.1, the “appearance [of a lawyer representing a defendant in any criminal
proceeding] shall constitute a representation to the Court that counsel so appearing shall represent the defendant until
final disposition of the case in this Court. No appearances may be withdrawn except by leave of Court.” When faced
with a motion to withdraw, “the court must weigh the reasons for which counsel seeks to withdraw, the prejudice to
the client and other litigants, the harm to the administration of justice, and delay in the resolution of the matter.”
United States v. Fattah, 159 F. Supp. 3d 545, 548 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (citing Taylor v. Stewart, 20 F. Supp. 2d 882, 883
(E.D. Pa. 1998)). We must also consider the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to a speedy
trial and the assistance of counsel for his defense. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI. While we are mindful that “[n]on-

            Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG Document 33 Filed 08/04/21 Page 2 of 2




                                                                 BY THE COURT:

                                                                 /s/ John M. Gallagher
                                                                 JOHN M. GALLAGHER
                                                                 United States District Court Judge




payment of legal fees, without more, is not usually a sufficient basis to permit an attorney to withdraw from
representation,” United States v. Heron, 513 F. Supp. 2d 393, 398 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (quoting United States v. Parker,
439 F.3d 81, 104 (2d Cir. 2006)), the decision “whether to allow withdrawal is within the sound discretion of the
court.” Fattah, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 548 (citing Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc., 802 F.2d 676, 679 (3d Cir. 1986)).

          Under the circumstances, we find good cause for withdrawal. First, the parties recently consented to a
continuance of the trial date. See ECF No. 27. Trial is now scheduled for January 2022. See id. Though granting the
motion may “further delay the resolution of the matter, that delay will not be so unreasonable.” United States v.
Totoro, No. 15-cr-291, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122902, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2016). In other words, it is not
unreasonably “late in the game for counsel to be seeking to pull out of this case.” Fattah, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 549
(collecting cases).

          Second, granting withdrawal will not prejudice Williams’s defense. Attached to the motion is a financial
affidavit, wherein Williams certifies that he is unemployed and earns zero dollars each month. See ECF No. 32-1.
“[I]n light of the Court’s ability in this instance to quickly appoint substitute counsel,” we find no prejudice. Totoro,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122902, at *7. Indeed, this order appoints the Federal Community Defender Office to replace
Archie and Mckoy as Williams’s counsel. Protection of Williams’s constitutional right to the assistance of counsel,
therefore, does not depend on our denial of the instant motion. Compare Fattah, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 549–50; Heron,
513 F. Supp. 2d at 399. If anything, denial of the motion would place Williams at “a distinct disadvantage,” as his
unwillingness to pay any legal fees directly impacts counsel’s trial preparation efforts. See ECF No. 32 at 3.

         In sum, the emergent conflict between Williams and his counsel justifies the appointment of new
representation. Archie and Mckoy will be permitted to withdraw from the case.

                                                           2

File and source

File

paed.569219.33.0.pdf

Size

166,056 bytes

SHA-256

72e951ccdc61a522583d0d3d23029c463094a0ca120d91e8a0c708bc270e6710

Our copy

paed.569219.33.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.