The Judge can put a halt to the suit, but it would make them look bad to do so because LK keeps changing her legal representation. It’s justifiable to get away with stopping the suit and dismissing the suit with prejudice, if it’s clear that she’s intentionally not cooperating with the proceedings and obstructing the legal process by doing so. If the Judge halts it and dismisses the suit without prejudice, she can take it up again later, but if it is dismissed with prejudice, she’s not going to get another chance.
13 Likes
That also doesn’t mean the countersuits against her can’t go forward, correct?
[(MS’s March donation total to date: $50) Trying to make the spreadsheet chore less onerous for @Unfforgettable]
9 Likes
Yes… that’s what I understood as well. Hence a judge potentially ordering an attorney to stay on through discovery. At least… that’s the way I understood the earlier comments on this topic. If I have it wrong (entirely possible) hopefully one of the league eagles will jump in and clarify and correct the record for everyone 
1 Like
There are 2 types of lawyer switches. A consent to change attorney is submitted by both incoming and outgoing attorneys. Those we’d just process, no permission needed. But on other cases (usually during ongoing trial in my area) an attorney may MOTION the court for permission to withdraw as counsel which may or may not be permitted by The Court.
It seemed to me processing these that active trial cases do the motion and pre trial cases do consents but as I processed 50 billion a day I never analyzed if every single consent was pre trial. Plus there are different types of cases that may have different levels of tolerance for attorney change.
9 Likes
I am not admitted in New Jersey (and never have been), but I looked up the New Jersey rules on withdrawing from representing a client.
The relevant part of Rule 7:7-9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:
© Withdrawal, Substitution Prior to Completion of Discovery and Prior to the Setting of a Trial Date. Prior to the completion of discovery and the setting of a trial date, an attorney may withdraw as counsel without leave of court upon the filing of the client’s written consent and a substitution of attorney executed by both the withdrawing attorney and the substituted attorney indicating that the withdrawal and substitution will not cause or result in delay. In the substitution of attorney, the withdrawing attorney shall certify that all discovery received from the State has been or will be provided to the substituting attorney within five business days after the filing of the fully executed substitution of attorney with the court.
(e) Motion at Any Stage of Proceedings. Nothing in this rule prohibits an attorney from filing a motion at any stage of the proceedings to be relieved from representing the defendant or be substituted as counsel.
Sooo, unless a new attorney is already lined up to substitute in, the judge would need to consent for her current attorney to withdraw.
Those pesky rules of Professional Responsibility also come out to play. The most relevant parts of which are as follows:
RULE RPC 1:16 - Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) Except as stated in paragraph ©, a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; . . . or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) Except as stated in paragraph ©, a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) 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;
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
© A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
[Sorry for the ©. The forum’s autocorrect is doing that and I can’t figure out how to make it just put the “c” in parenthesis]
15 Likes
How is asking for evidence on an alleged instance of harassment “evidence that Mr. Deininger isn’t lying”?
Stone is asking whether there is evidence the alleged incident of harassment even happened. Until such evidence is produced, we don’t know whether Deininger is lying or not.
2 Likes
To tag onto my previous comment -
There is little doubt in my mind that LK is avoiding providing clear and accurate info to GAS. The fact that she and her parents are doing everything in their power to delay the progress of the lawsuit that LK filed makes me very confident that they are also delaying providing pertinent info to her own attorney. And that may also be a reason why GAS is wanting info from the defendants - he is realizing that he isn’t getting the full story from LK and he doesn’t want to be blindsided by it during depositions.
33 Likes
If your theory is true, depositions are going to be a cold bucket of ice water in the face for GAS.
19 Likes
Thanks for sharing this and explaining it.
It sounds like if GAS is allowed to withdraw, it will only happen if LK has another attorney lined up to sub in.
Also… likely that the judge will not allow more delays due to substitutions.
3 Likes
This is a bit off topic but I found it heartening in that these people will have their dirty actions and communications exposed in court.
34 Likes
If that’s the case, I don’t see why that should be MB’s problem.
I would think MB would need to pay his legal team to assemble and hand over the information GAS wants from him. Why should MB have to bear that cost just because GAS can’t get the facts straight from his own client?
33 Likes
That’s a good point about legal expenses for MB. I didn’t think of that.
What a mess.
7 Likes
Agree. It will be interesting to see if MB’s counsels file something contesting these requests from GAS. And interesting to see how Weaver rules on those issues.
14 Likes
In this filing, Stone is asking for different things from the two remaining defendants.
From MB, Stone is asking for all the pleadings and filings by MBs defense in the criminal case. It would be extremely easy for Deininger to hand these over, if he were willing. Apparently Deininger had not handed them over and not responded as to whether he intends to hand them over.
From SGF, Stone is asking for documents pertaining to the specific redacted incident of harassment, and documents pertaining to the “other incidents of harassment” mentioned by SGF.
He is asking for documentation of alleged incidents of harassment against Barisone and family. This would be easy to provide if any such documentation existed.
He is not asking for additional allegations of harassment against other people in LKs past.
I would put a space between each character like this: ( c )
Not as uniform, but it prevents the system from creating the copyright character
2 Likes
Stone is asking MB for the complete legal record of pleadings in the criminal case. It would be less expensive for Deininger to hand over an electronic copy of it than to file motions arguing that he shouldn’t have to turn it over.
1 Like
“MB’s counsels”?
Silver represents SGF, not MB.
During Dr Hassan’s testimony, he also mentioned an alleged incident that had been listed in the lawsuit that MB filed against LE. It was that MB saw something where RG/LK searched for the location of MHG’s children. The prosecutor objected as no evidence was found to support that allegation. The judge sustained the objection. So LE appears to have investigated that allegation as they investigated the allegation that MB had abused MHG’s children in any way (the “neglect” complaint to DCPP). No evidence for either though I’m not sure if no evidence existed that MB had the opportunity to see proof that RG/LK searched for MHG’s children or if they never actually searched for MHG’s children. Just as those dispensing explanations about filings in the upcoming civil trial that allegations filed must be proven in court concerning MB causing harm to LK, allegations in MB’s filing have to be proven as well but with the case denied, specific allegations were not all brought to the public’s attention. This particular allegation about the search for the kids and the lack of substantiating evidence was brought out in the criminal trial by the prosecutor. The lack of evidence that MB harmed MHG’s children was brought out in 48 hours when the prosecutor was questioned. The information that the complaint to SafeSport was for neglect (which is also child abuse) that prompted the DCPP investigation was brought out in testimony by the DCPP employee in criminal court during questioning by the prosecutor. The allegation MB harmed LK was proven in criminal court. The prosecutor met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, that MB shot LK. Everyone knows this. There is much discussion on estoppel considerations for the civil trial for what has actually been proven.
Dienenger filed at least one allegation that showed to be unsubstantiated, that RG/LK searched for MHG’s children. Now Stone is requesting backup for allegations in the current motion as prior filings contain at least one unsubstantiated claim. Stone wants Dienenger to show relevance. Even in discovery, with all the leeway allowed, making stuff up and fabricated gossip is not considered ok. Stone is just doing his job.
2 Likes
It seems to me that it would be so much easier for GAS to simply look at the public record to figure out what the public record information that was acquired was.
Think of the time and money he could have saved everyone by just going that route?
26 Likes
It is not faster and cheaper to turn over filings and pleadings if the person asking for them has no right to them.
By the same token, it should be a lot faster and less expensive for Kirby to turn over her transcripts or say she doesn’t have them. They’re not doing that, are they?
Hmm.
49 Likes
