MOT. TO WITHDRAW PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Case No. 6:20-cv-00572-ADA

Civil Case No. 6:20-cv-00575-ADA

Civil Case No. 6:20-cv-00579-ADA

Civil Case No. 6:20-cv-00580-ADA

Civil Case No. 6:20-cv-00584-ADA

Civil Case No. 6:20-cv-00585-ADA

CARTER ARNETT PLLC’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

DUE TO A NON-WAIVABLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Local Rule AT-7 makes the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct the 

standards for professional conduct in this Court. Under those standards, Carter Arnett PLLC has a 

non-waivable conflict of interest with its client, WSOU Investments, LLC, that requires the 

withdrawal of all Carter Arnett attorneys from WSOU’s matters. WSOU does not oppose Carter 

Arnett’s withdrawal. 

On February 10, 2022, Carter Arnett learned facts indicating that the firm may have a 

developing conflict of interest with WSOU. Carter Arnett therefore continued to pursue WSOU’s 

matters while also pursuing an investigation of the facts indicating a conflict may exist.

By February 16, 2022, Carter Arnett’s investigation and analysis of the facts revealed that 

a conflict of interest did exist. Carter Arnett therefore reached out to counsel and an expert in the 

field of legal ethics in Texas, James M. McCormack Esq., on February 16 to consult about the 

facts giving rise to the conflict, and about whether Carter Arnett’s conclusions about why those 

facts created a non-waivable conflict of interest and made Carter Arnett’s withdrawal mandatory 

were warranted. Additional communications between Mr. McCormack and Carter Arnett ensued 

between February 16 and 19 and as Carter Arnett learned additional facts and information about 

the nature of the conflict. As shown in the attached declaration of James M. McCormack Esq., Mr. 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 90 Filed 02/21/22 Page 1 of 4
MOT. TO WITHDRAW PAGE 2

McCormack agreed with Carter Arnett’s assessment about the nature of the conflict that emerged 

on February 10, the impact that additional facts Cater Arnett learned between February 10 and 18,

and that such facts created a conflict that required the firm’s immediate withdrawal.

1

Carter Arnett hastens to add, however, that none of the facts or issues presented in the 

parties’ respective discovery disputes now pending before the Court played any role in Carter 

Arnett’s need to withdraw from these cases. Quite the contrary. Carter Arnett stands by all of the 

positions it asserted on WSOU’s behalf when advancing WSOU’s disputes against Google and 

when defending against Google’s disputes against WSOU. The arguments Carter Arnett presented 

remain unchanged, and the relief Carter Arnett requested from the Court on WSOU’s behalf 

relating to those disputes remains justified and should be awarded as previously submitted and 

argued on February 17. 

Because the facts giving rise to the conflict are privileged, the rules of professional conduct 

require Carter Arnett to keep them confidential. See Tex. Disciplinary R. of Prof’l Conduct 1.15, 

cmt. 3. But Carter Arnett’s studied conclusion—backed by an expert and lawyer in the field of 

ethics—about why those facts give rise to a non-waivable conflict that requires Carter Arnett’s 

withdrawal from all WSOU matters, is generally considered sufficient under the rules to establish 

the firm’s need to withdraw. See id. If, however, the Court requires more detail, Carter Arnett will 

provide such detail in camera, ex parte, and subject to its responsibility under the rules of 

professional conduct to maintain all privileges. 

Carter Arnett therefore requests that the Court grant this motion and permit Carter Arnett 

and all of its lawyers who have appeared in these matters to withdraw. Mark Siegmund and Greg 

Love will remain in the cases on WSOU’s behalf. Carter Arnett seeks this relief not for purposes 

of delay but for no other reason than because Carter Arnett is required to do so under the rules of 

professional conduct. Attorneys with the law firm of Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry will remain 

as counsel of record for Plaintiff.

1 Ex. 1, Decl. of James M. McCormmack. 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 90 Filed 02/21/22 Page 2 of 4
MOT. TO WITHDRAW PAGE 3

Date: February 21, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ E. Leon Carter

E. Leon Carter

lcarter@carterarnett.com

Texas Bar No. 03914300

Scott W. Breedlove

sbreedlove@carterarnett.com

Texas Bar No. 00790361

Linda R. Stahl

Texas Bar No. 00798525

lstahl@carterarnett.com

Joshua J. Bennett

jbennett@carterarnett.com

Texas Bar No. 24059444

Bradley D. Liddle

bliddle@carterarnett.com

Texas Bar No. 24074599

Seth A. Lindner

slinder@carterarnett.com

Texas Bar No. 24078862

Theresa M. Dawson

Texas Bar No. 24065128

tdawson@carterarnett.com

Michael C. Pomeroy

Texas Bar No. 24098952

mpomeroy@carterarnett.com

Nathan Cox

ncox@carterarnett.com

Texas Bar No. 24105751

CARTER ARNETT PLLC

8150 N. Central Expy, 5th Floor

Dallas, Texas 75206

Telephone No. (214) 550-8188 

Facsimile No. (214) 550-8185 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 90 Filed 02/21/22 Page 3 of 4
MOT. TO WITHDRAW PAGE 4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on February 19 and 20, Carter Arnett PLLC conferred with WSOU 

Investments, LLC about the relief sought in this motion. WSOU indicated that it did not oppose 

Carter Arnett’s withdrawal from these actions. On February 21, 2022, I also conferred with Greg 

Lanier and Mike Jones, counsel for Google, LLC, about the relief sought in this motion. Google 

was not able to provide its position on the relief the motion seeks by the time of the motion’s filing.

Accordingly, Carter Arnett will file an amended certificate of conference when Google’s final 

position is disclosed.

/s/ Joshua J. Bennett

Joshua J. Bennett

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 90 Filed 02/21/22 Page 4 of 4