States Oppose Withdrawal of Robocall Defendant's Counsel as Coming Too 'Late'

The seven state plaintiffs in the massive Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against multiple defendants oppose as coming too late in advance of a June trial Tuesday’s motion by defendant Scott Shapiro's attorneys to withdraw as his counsel, said their opposition Wednesday (docket 4:20-cv-02021) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston. The states estimate Shapiro was responsible for nearly 40% of the 742.3 million calls made to consumers whose numbers were on the national do not call registry (see 2302220001). Burns & Levinson's Shepard Davidson and Kane Russell's David Thrasher seek to withdraw from the case.

The Davidson-Thrasher motion cited “irreconcilable differences” that have emerged between them and Shapiro, and said “professional considerations require termination” of their representation. Shapiro “has failed to substantially fulfill obligations” to his lawyers for their services, it said. “Continuing representation of Shapiro under current circumstances will result in an unreasonable financial burden” on Davidson and Thrasher, said their motion. "Confidentiality obligations" to Shapiro prevent them from being more specific about the reasons for their desired withdrawal, it said.

But the parties “are currently in the middle of exchanging pretrial information” to comply with the court’s March 9 modified docket control order for filing the pretrial order by May 8 in preparation for a June jury trial that’s expected to last 10 days, said the states’ opposition. The states gave defense counsel, including Davidson and Thrasher, drafts of the pretrial order and jury charge April 17, for their comments by May 1, it said. The parties also agreed to exchange their respective exhibit lists, witness lists and contentions of the parties on April 28, it said.

Davidson and Thrasher informed the states April 24 they intend to withdraw as Shapiro’s counsel, and the states responded a day later that they oppose the motion, said the opposition. The states base their opposition on “the limited information given as justification for the withdrawal” and said “we are in the middle of an agreed exchange of pretrial information” for a June trial. The states also would object “to any request for an extension of the current deadlines” based on the “attempted withdrawal” of Shapiro’s lawyers, it said.

Davidson and Thrasher filed their motion to withdraw “just three days prior to the date the parties agreed to mutually exchange exhibit lists, witness lists, and contentions,” said the states’ opposition. The trial date, now set for June, “has already been continued five times,” it said.

The states oppose counsel’s attempted withdrawal “at this late juncture” out of concern it will result in the defendants “seeking more delay in this case, particularly with no substitution of counsel” for Shapiro, said their opposition. The court should deny the motion to withdraw, it said. In the alternative, if the court allows counsel to withdraw, the states ask that the defendants “be held to comply with the current deadlines,” it said.