Not surprisingly, appellants former attorneys have refused to explain their failure to effectively withdraw and provide notice of withdrawal under rule 105. In any event, where a party itself is guilty of neglect, the neglect is inexcusable regardless of whether his representative is also negligent. As noted, appellants discharged their attorneys, chose to represent themselves pro se, and admit that they had a copy of the scheduling order in their files but did not read it or notice it. Thus, appellants showing on this factor is weak. By June 1999, they moved to vacate and for a new trial.
Respondents concede that appellants acted with due diligence.
With respect to respondents misrepresentation counterclaim, appellants note that Tristam Hage is an experienced attorney and that this weighs against his claim that he was induced into entering the contract with them. See Boubelik v. Appellants further presented some evidence that many of the delays in the project were caused or created by respondents themselves, which may be a defense to respondents breach of contract claim and their claim that appellants misrepresented that they had experience in these types of projects and would be able to complete the project in a timely manner. Appellants finally point to their prior success before the arbitrator in this case. Thus, we conclude that appellants have shown that they have a reasonable defense on the merits.