#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation, 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

ADIL SHAFI, an individual, 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ 

 Third-Party Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-10454 

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts 

IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION

REQUESTED

v. 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual, 

 Third-Party Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR 

BRAINTECH, INC. AND FREDERICK WEIDINGER

Pepper Hamilton, LLP (“Pepper Hamilton”), counsel for Braintech, Inc. and 

Frederick Weidinger (“Weidinger”), (together, Braintech, Inc. and Weidinger are jointly referred 

to here as “Braintech”) in the above-captioned action (the “Action”), hereby moves for leave to 

withdraw as counsel of record for Braintech in the Action, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 1.2 and 

83.30(a) and Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b) (the “Motion”). 

In accordance with E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1, Pepper Hamilton conferred on March 5, 

2010 with Adil Shafi’s (“Shafi”) counsel regarding the Motion, and Shafi’s counsel does not 

object the relief requested herein. Pepper Hamilton respectfully requests that the Court treat the 

Motion as an “emergency” motion, within the meaning of E.D. Mich. L.R. 1.2, because the 

issues raised in the Motion must be resolved promptly to ensure that neither the parties nor 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 1 of 10
-2- 

#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

Pepper Hamilton are prejudiced in connection with upcoming deadlines in this case. In further 

support of this Motion, Pepper Hamilton respectfully refers this Court to the Memorandum of 

Law in Support filed herewith. 

WHEREFORE, Pepper Hamilton requests the Court enter an Order (1) granting 

Pepper Hamilton’s Emergency Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Braintech, Inc. and 

Frederick Weidinger, and (2) adjourning the settlement conference and settlement statement 

deadline for thirty (30) days to permit Braintech to retain substitute counsel. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ James D. Vandewyngearde 

Dated: March 8, 2010 

JAMES D. VANDEWYNGEARDE (P58634) 

MARY K. DEON (P63019) 

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 

100 Renaissance Center, Suite 3600 

Detroit, Michigan 48243-1157 

(313) 259-7110 

vandewyj@pepperlaw.com 

Attorneys for Braintech, Inc. and Frederick 

Weidinger 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 2 of 10
#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation, 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

ADIL SHAFI, an individual, 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ 

 Third-Party Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-10454 

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts 

v. 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual, 

 Third-Party Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PEPPER HAMILTON’S 

EMERGENCY MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR 

BRAINTECH, INC. AND FREDERICK WEIDINGER

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 3 of 10
-i- 

#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... ii 

STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED.............................................................................iii 

I. GENERAL BACKGROUND SUPPORTING THE MOTION.......................................... 1 

II. AUTHORITY...................................................................................................................... 1 

III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 3 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 4 of 10
-ii- 

#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATE CASES 

Bye v. Ferguson, 138 Mich. App. 196 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984) ........................................................2 

Downing v. Bankers Trust Co., 2002 WL. 31117035 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 2002) .................2 

Farnswarth v Marysville Masonic Temple Associate, 2000 WL. 33538588 (Mich. Ct. 

App. Jan. 14, 2000)....................................................................................................................2 

Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Alternative Insurance Services, Inc., No. 07-cv-15170, 

2008 WL. 4998361 (ED. Mich. Nov. 21, 2008)........................................................................2 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 5 of 10
-iii- 

#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED

Should Pepper Hamilton LLP be allowed to withdraw as counsel of record in this 

action when (a) Pepper Hamilton’s continued representation of Braintech for the 

duration of this case would impose an unreasonable financial burden upon Pepper 

Hamilton; and (b) when communications between Pepper Hamilton and Braintech 

have deteriorated to the extent that the attorney-client relationship is no longer 

tenable? 

 Pepper Hamilton LLP responds yes. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 6 of 10
-1- 

#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

I. GENERAL BACKGROUND SUPPORTING THE MOTION

There has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship with Braintech to 

such an extent that effective representation of Braintech in this matter is not possible and that 

further representation of Braintech would lead to an unreasonable financial burden and financial 

exposure on the part of Pepper Hamilton if the Court does not permit it to withdraw as 

Braintech’s counsel. Braintech has been informed of Pepper Hamilton’s potential withdrawal 

and the reasons therefore. There are no significant pending case management or scheduling 

deadlines that would prevent Pepper Hamilton from withdrawing, other than the April 12, 2010 

settlement conference and the corresponding April 4, 2010 settlement statement deadline. In 

order to allow Braintech sufficient time to obtain successor counsel, Pepper Hamilton requests 

that the Court grant Braintech a thirty (30) day continuance and extend the settlement statement 

deadline and settlement conference by thirty days. 

II. AUTHORITY

Pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 83.30(a), counsel may move for leave to withdraw its 

appearance.

1

 Rule 1.16(b) of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”), which 

governs the practice of law in this Court, provides, in relevant part, that counsel may withdraw 

from a representation when: 

(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the 

lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given 

reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the 

obligation is fulfilled; 

(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial 

burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult 

by the client; or 

 

1

 Pepper Hamilton brings the Motion pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 1.2, because the issues raised in the 

Motion must be resolved promptly, to ensure that neither the parties nor Pepper Hamilton are prejudiced. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 7 of 10
-2- 

#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists. 

See also MRPC 1.16, Comment (“A lawyer may withdraw if the client refuses to abide by the 

terms of an agreement relating to the representation, such as an agreement concerning fees or 

court costs or an agreement limiting the objectives of the representation.”). 

 In a number of cases, Michigan courts have granted leave to withdraw under far 

more exigent conditions than exist here. Attorneys have been allowed to withdraw under MRPC 

1.16(b) within only a few days of trial or even when the client was left without alternative 

representation. See Downing v. Bankers Trust Co., 2002 WL 31117035 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 

24, 2002) (allowing original attorney to withdraw after discovery for lack of payment and second 

attorney to withdraw two days before trial where attorney-client relationship so degraded could 

not be said to cause prejudice); Farnswarth v Marysville Masonic Temple Assoc., 2000 WL 

33538588 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2000) (withdrawal of counsel upheld where proper grounds 

existed and client given sufficient notice, even though client not granted continuance and took on 

own representation); Cf. Bye v. Ferguson, 138 Mich. App. 196 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984) (where 

attorney justifiably withdrew for nonpayment of fees, client should have been given notice and 

opportunity to seek new counsel). See also Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Alternative Ins. Services, 

Inc., No. 07-cv-15170, 2008 WL 4998361, *2-3 (ED. Mich. Nov. 21, 2008) (granting motion to 

withdraw due to non-payment of legal fees and the breakdown in communications between 

counsel and client). 

 Good cause exists for Pepper Hamilton’s withdrawal as counsel for Braintech in 

this matter, because: 

• Pepper Hamilton’s continued representation of Braintech for the 

duration of this case would impose an unreasonable financial 

burden upon Pepper Hamilton, in light of Braintech’s failure and 

refusal to agree to the terms of continued representation and the 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 8 of 10
-3- 

#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

costs and fees that would be incurred by Pepper Hamilton in 

representing Braintech in the Action; 

• Communications between Pepper Hamilton and Braintech have 

deteriorated to the extent that the attorney-client relationship is no 

longer tenable. 

Under such circumstances, it is appropriate to grant Pepper Hamilton’s leave to withdraw as 

counsel. Pepper Hamilton’s withdrawal will not result in a material adverse effect on the 

interests of Braintech. Substitute counsel will have ample opportunity to get up to speed on this 

matter and then continue with further proceedings. 

In conjunction with seeking leave to withdraw, Pepper Hamilton respectfully 

requests that the settlement conference and settlement statement deadline be adjourned for thirty 

(30) days, to provide Braintech the opportunity to appoint substitute lead counsel in this action. 

III. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Pepper Hamilton requests the Court enter an Order (1) granting 

Pepper Hamilton’s Emergency Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Braintech, Inc. and 

Frederick Weidinger, and (2) adjourning the settlement conference and settlement statement 

deadline for thirty (30) days to permit Braintech to retain substitute counsel. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: March 8, 2010 

JAMES D. VANDEWYNGEARDE (P58634) 

MARY K. DEON (P63019) 

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 

100 Renaissance Center, Suite 3600 

Detroit, Michigan 48243-1157 

(313) 259-7110 

vandewyj@pepperlaw.com 

Attorneys for Braintech, Inc. and Frederick 

Weidinger 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 9 of 10
#12145866 v1 (135776.2) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 8th day of March, 2010, I caused to be electronically 

filed the foregoing Emergency Motion To Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff/CounterDefendant Braintech, Inc., Memorandum of Law in support thereof, and this Certificate of 

Service, with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, and notice will be 

sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all ECF participants. 

I further certify that a courtesy copy will be hand delivered to the Hon. 

Victoria A. Roberts, Room 123, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48226. 

s/James D. VandeWyngearde 

JAMES D. VANDEWYNGEARDE (P58634) 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 27 Filed 03/08/10 Page 10 of 10