Opinion ID: 4528262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Motion to Withdraw

Text: On February 5, 2018, Portnoy sent a letter to the district court judge requesting the district court to “[i]ssue an [o]rder for [m]ediation to begin [i]mmediately and [a]ppoint a [m]ediator to [s]ee [i]f all issues involved with this case, can be resolved in a [sic] amicable way beneficial to all parties concerned.” He described his many complaints with Bacharach, including that he was “difficult to ever get ahold of,” and “waited until the very last minute” to file pleadings. At the same time, Portnoy acknowledged that he would not be able to find another attorney to replace Bacharach if he withdrew. Portnoy also mentioned that he was living in the streets, because he lost the use of his father’s house after his death. The district court denied Portnoy’s mediation request as a nullity on February 7, 2018. On June 15, 2018, Bacharach filed a second motion to withdraw pursuant to Local Rule 11.1(H) and Rule 4-1.16 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (“Florida Bar Rule 4-1.16”). Florida Bar Rule 4-1.16 allows an attorney to withdraw from representing a client in certain circumstances, including where 2 The “Survival Action” claim (Count II) alleges that, as a result of the VA’s negligence, Portnoy’s father experienced bodily injury, pain and suffering, and loss of earnings from the time he developed the infection until his death. 6 Case: 19-10358 Date Filed: 04/23/2020 Page: 7 of 20 “withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client . . . or other good cause for withdrawal exists.” R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.16(b). Bacharach explained that Portnoy had filed a complaint against him in February and quoted non-privileged portions of his response to the Florida Bar: Enclosed please find: a print out of the history of Mr. Portnoy’s case as maintained by the Prevail Case Management Soft used by my office; a print out of just the telephone contact with Mr. Portnoy from the Prevail history, which shows over 28 hours of phone calls with Mr. Portnoy; a print out of the Docket of the United States District Court (USDC) for the Northern District of Florida regarding Mr. Portnoy 's Federal Tort Claim against the United states [sic]; a minute order from USDC Judge Walker dated November 15, 2017; plaintiff's first amended complaint dated November 27, 2017; Mr. Portnoy latter [sic] to Judge Walker filed into the record on February 5, 2018; USDC Judge Walker's Order denying Mr. Portnoy 's letter,/motion [sic]; and my letters to Mr. Portnoy of June 8, 2016 and February, 9, 2018. On the face of the enclosed documents it is clear that Mr. Portnoys [sic] complaints regard[ing] me and my staff are not substantiated. . . . Mr. Portnoy has spoken with me repeatedly regarding my providing him with financial help. I have repeatedly recommended that Mr. Portnoy to [sic] contact food banks and homeless shelters in the Ocala area seeking assistance. I have also repeatedly [suggested contacting] his local rabbis (Mr. Portnoy is Jewish) for financial assistance. This advice was in the context of my repeatedly explaining that I was not allowed to give, loan or advance Mr. Portnoy money. I explained to him that as a member of the Florida Bar I was prohibited from loaning or advancing him money to be repaid from any possible settlement, for the purchase of the car. Mr. Portnoy’s response was that I was lying and that the Bar has told him that I could lend him money and that maybe I should have to explain to the Bar why I would not help him. In addition, Mr Portnoy has repeatedly suggested that I could buy him a new car or van under the table; and who would know? . . . . 7 Case: 19-10358 Date Filed: 04/23/2020 Page: 8 of 20 On or around May 3, 2018, the Florida Bar informed Bacharach that there was insufficient evidence that Bacharach had violated any rules in his representation of Portnoy and therefore it closed the file. Bacharach also included his notes from a May 10, 2018 phone call with Portnoy: Spoke to Mr Portnoy for an hour and 55 minutes. Started with telling me that he had spoken with the Bar after they did not find violation of the rules and told me that he had called and complained and Ms. Craft admitted that she hadn't read the complete Bar file and would give the Bar file to another Bar attorney who would read everything. I explained that I found his Bar complaints distracting and it makes it difficult to represent him. He followed up that with [sic] the Bar was going to make me sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that I don't have a conflict because I'm friends with the VA administrators and that's why I wasn't trying to win his case. Then he brought up his need for a loan for the purchase of a car or car [sic]. When I told him Bar rules prohibited me from loaning him money or buying him a car; he told me that the Bar also told him that he could request review of the decision to close his complaint and that this wasn't over. Then he talked about his fathers [sic] house and said that he had recorded our calls from the house and that I had agreed to represent him. I told him that it was illegal in Florida to tape conversations with other people without their permission, that he didn't have my permission to record our calls; and that he shouldn't record calls with others, especially people working at the Bar. Indeed, shortly after this call—on May 24, 2018—the Florida Bar sent Bacharach a letter informing him that Portnoy had requested a review of the decision to close the complaint. Bacharach claimed that Portnoy’s threats and complaints to the Florida Bar “are extremely stressful and are objectively taking a toll on 8 Case: 19-10358 Date Filed: 04/23/2020 Page: 9 of 20 [Bacharach’s] health” . . . “to the extent that it materially impairs the [his] ability (and desire) to represent this particular client.” On June 20, 2018, Portnoy filed a written response, again complaining about Bacharach’s efforts. He claimed that his “suffering and losses ‘are still mounting’ . . . because of [Bacharach’s] stalling & latency in presenting [his] case to the court system!” He further stated that Bacharach was “also ‘taking advantage’ of the fact that I would not be able to find another lawyer!! Perhaps not, and certainly at this point!!” And he asserted that Bacharach was not presenting the “‘true facts’ of the case to the Court.” The district court held a hearing on Bacharach’s motion to withdraw, during which Portnoy described his issues with Bacharach, consistent with his written complaints. He told the district court that one of his main disagreements with Bacharach arose from the October 20, 2017 show cause order: Bacharach recommended dropping the wrongful death claim and pursuing only a claim for pain and suffering on behalf of the patient. Portnoy vehemently disagreed. Further, Portnoy explained that he had tried to find another lawyer but had not been able to secure one because lawyers “don’t want to touch” a VA case or get involved in an ongoing case. When asked for its position on Bacharach’s motion to withdraw, the government replied that it did not have one. The district court then offered its observations on the issue. The main issue for the district court was 9 Case: 19-10358 Date Filed: 04/23/2020 Page: 10 of 20 how to balance “the discord, which is certainly a permissive basis to withdraw . . . against the prejudice to the client.” It announced that it would balance those interests and issue a written order. On June 27, 2018, the district court issued a written order granting the motion to withdraw. It stated that “[i]t became abundantly clear at the hearing that Plaintiff and his counsel cannot work together in a manner to give Plaintiff effective legal representation. Therefore, under Rule 4-1.16(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, permissive withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel is appropriate.”3 The district court also noted that Portnoy needed to obtain new counsel because “[t]he right to appear pro se does not extend to those cases when parties are not conducting their own cases and therefore does not apply to persons representing the interests of others.” Because Portnoy was not conducting his own case, and was representing the interests of others, the district court stayed the case for 90 days to allow Portnoy to obtain new counsel.