1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY 15873, admitted pro hac vice) 

pcambria@lglaw.com 

Erin E. McCampbell (NY 4480166, admitted pro hac vice) 

emccampbell@lglaw.com 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey 

 

 Defendant. 

Case No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB) 

DEFENDANT LACEY’S NOTICE OF 

JOINDER IN MOTION TO DISMISS DUE 

TO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE 

WITH RIGHT TO COUNSEL (DOC. 456) 

Defendant Michael Lacey hereby joins in Sections I and II of Defendants Andrew 

Padilla’s and Joye Vaught’s Motion to Dismiss Due to Government Interference With Right To 

Counsel And Request For Disclosure, Or, In The Alternative, Motion To Withdraw (Doc. 456) 

(“Motion to Dismiss”). Mr. Lacey adopts the legal positions and bases set forth in those sections 

of the Motion to Dismiss as if fully set forth herein, and seeks dismissal of the matter. 

Counsel for Mr. Lacey does not, at this time, join the alternative request to withdraw that 

is set forth in Section III of the Motion to Dismiss. The unconstitutionality and infirmity of the 

one batch of government’s seizures is the subject of pending litigation in the Central District of 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 465 Filed 02/20/19 Page 1 of 3
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

California,1 and of another batch of government seizures is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals.2

 The rulings of these other courts could free up significant amounts of improperly 

seized assets and attorney’s fees and obviate the need to consider withdrawing, despite the 

government’s improper actions in improperly seizing attorney’s fees. Consequently, Mr. Lacey 

submits that providing appropriate time for those courts to render substantive rulings before 

considering withdrawal is appropriate. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of February, 2019 

 LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Michael Lacey 

 

1 See 18-MJ-2782, 18-MJ-2783, 18-MJ-2784, 18-MJ-2785, 18-MJ-2786, 18-MJ-2788, 18-MJ2880, and 18-MJ-2883 (C.D. Cal. 2018). 

2 See United States v. Larkin et al., No. 18-56455 (9th Cir.).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 465 Filed 02/20/19 Page 2 of 3
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this 20th day of February 2019, I electronically transmitted a PDF 

version of this document to the Clerk of the Court by filing with the CM/ECF system and 

understand a copy of the filing will be emailed to the attorneys of record. 

By: /s/ Kristina Drewery 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 465 Filed 02/20/19 Page 3 of 3