IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIFFLINBURG TELEGRAPH, INC., :

 :

 Plaintiff : 

 :

 v. : CIVIL NO. 4:14-CV-00612

 :

HEIDI CRISWELL, et al., : (Judge Brann) 

 : 

 Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

May 29, 2015

Currently pending before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 

filed by Counsel for the Defendants, Heidi Criswell, Darlene Sharp, Dale E. 

Criswell, and Wildcat Publications, LLC (the “Clients”). (ECF No. 71). Plaintiff 

concurs with the motion, and no defendants other than the Clients object to the 

Motion. (ECF No. 76).

Middle District Local Rule 83.15 confers discretion upon district courts to 

grant or deny a Motion to Withdraw where substitute counsel has not entered an 

appearance. As the United States Court of Appeals for Third Circuit has noted,

“there is no multi-factor test that a district court must apply to decide a motion for 

attorney withdrawal. Rules regarding attorney withdrawal are necessarily general 

because of the context-laden nature of such determinations. The interests to be 

Case 4:14-cv-00612-MWB Document 78 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 5
2

considered will vary widely from case to case.” Ohntrup v. Makina Ve Kimya 

Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 295 (3d Cir. 2014).

Counsel seeks to withdraw its appearance on behalf of the Clients due to 

unpaid legal fees. (ECF No. 72). Counsel points out that the retainer agreement 

signed by the Clients acknowledges that:

invoices are rendered monthly and are payable within 30 days. In the 

event that [the] statements are not timely paid, or that payment terms 

satisfactory to use are not established, [Counsel] reserve[s] the right to 

renegotiate the terms of this agreement to terminate it and withdraw 

from this or any representation of [the Clients], and/or pursue other 

remedies.

Id. at Ex. C. 

On May 30, 2014, Counsel sent an invoice to the Clients for $26,206.50. Id.

at Ex. D. Counsel asserts that, thereafter, “as early as July 2014 . . . Clients were 

reminded on numerous occasions in writing and by telephone that they were 

required to keep up with payments due to Counsel and that failure to do so would 

result in Counsel’s motion to withdraw from the representation.” (ECF No. 72). 

On the basis of these communications, the Clients submitted $10,500 in payments 

to Counsel in September of 2014. Id. at Ex. D. In October 2014 Counsel applied 

the entire $5,000 retainer toward the outstanding legal bill. Id. To date, Clients 

have made monthly $500 payments toward their bill, resulting in payments totaling 

$19,000. Id. Nevertheless, legal fees continue to accrue.

Case 4:14-cv-00612-MWB Document 78 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Counsel asserts that “[t]he current financial condition of Clients and their 

likely financial condition going forward make it unlikely that the outstanding 

balance owed to Counsel will be paid or that additional fees and costs incurred in 

the future will be paid.” Id. Although the Clients have paid $19,000 in legal fees, 

to date approximately $45,166.86 remains unpaid. Id. The Clients acknowledge 

the amounts unpaid, but note that they have been making regular payments towards 

the balance, and assert that they are able to continue paying Counsel $1,000 per 

month. Id. at Ex. E. 

At this juncture, the most appropriate resolution of this issue is to allow 

Counsel to withdraw from the case. Counsel has been placed in a difficult position 

due to the Clients’ failure to timely pay their legal fees. Although the Clients have 

made a good faith effort to pay the fees, and are paying as much as they 

realistically can afford, the costs of litigation are far outstripping the Clients’ 

ability to pay those costs. Unfortunately, this leaves Counsel in the difficult 

position of being forced to expend considerable time and resources without any 

genuine assurances of payment for services rendered.

Furthermore, every document submitted in relation to this Motion indicates 

that the relationship between Counsel and Clients is strained. In that vein, the 

Clients’ letters indicate that they feel deceived by Counsel regarding alleged oral 

assurances that some form of regular payment on the legal fees owed would be 

Case 4:14-cv-00612-MWB Document 78 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 5
4

sufficient. (ECF No. 75, Ex. E). The Clients believe that Counsel is unwilling to 

negotiate regarding payment, and stated that their refusal to accept security 

interests or other form of assurances is “frustrating[.]” Id. Therefore, it may be 

best that the Clients begin a clean slate with a new attorney.

The Court is not unmindful of the burden that the Clients will carry as a 

result of Counsel’s decision to withdraw. Unfortunately, this is an extremely 

difficult situation with no easy solution, although the balance of concerns in this 

case militates toward granting Counsel’s request. Counsel will undoubtedly suffer 

severe prejudice if they are forced to continue in their current capacity without an 

assurance of payment for their efforts. Discovery is not yet complete, and 

dispositive motions have not been submitted. A great deal of time would be 

expended if Counsel is forced to submit dispositive motions, or respond to the 

same upon completion of discovery.

On the other hand, the Clients will not suffer significant prejudice if Counsel 

is allowed to withdraw. The case is still far from trial and, and as a result, there is 

sufficient time for another attorney to enter the case and defend the Clients. There 

will be some additional expenses incurred, as any new counsel will need to 

familiarize him or herself with the case. Furthermore, granting the Motion to 

Withdraw will delay the disposition of this case. 

Case 4:14-cv-00612-MWB Document 78 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Finally, because discovery concludes approximately one month from this 

date, there would be some prejudice resulting if new counsel were forced to

comply with the discovery deadline. To rectify this, the Court will delay the 

discovery deadline. The Court is also mindful that, as a general rule, a corporation 

may only appear in federal court through licensed counsel. Rowland v. Cal. Men’s 

Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993). 

Therefore, the Clients will be afforded sufficient time to locate replacement 

counsel. 

Consequently, Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for the Clients 

will be granted. A separate Order will be issued.

 

BY THE COURT:

s/Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-00612-MWB Document 78 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 5