Opinion ID: 1881047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The second motion for additional time.

Text: ¶ 25. Plaintiffs tell us that [t]he second motion was based upon the fact that the law firm of Greer, Pipkin and Russell had withdrawn but not returned the file. The firm who took the file back had no reason to know that service had not been made prior to Greer, Pipkin and Russell's withdrawal. Again, we find the representations of counsel to be less than forthright. ¶ 26. Plaintiffs' counsel leaves the implication, once Greer, Pipkin and Russell was associated on the case, Jimmy D. Shelton & Associates no longer had responsibilities to represent the plaintiffs, including the responsibility to make sure process was timely served. Counsel implies that his firm took the file back and had no reason to know that service had not been made prior to Greer, Pipkin and Russell's withdrawal. The fact is, Jimmy D. Shelton & Associates never lost possession of the fileat least, not in the legal sense. And for counsel to represent to this Court that his firm had no reason to know that service had not been made prior to Greer, Pipkin and Russell's withdrawal is unsupportable. Jimmy D. Shelton & Associates has been counsel of record in this matter since its inception, and as counsel of record, maintained all the duties and obligations to the client as provided in Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.