From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BEEM v. DAVIS

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Aug 31, 2006
Case No. 04-3180-JWL (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 04-3180-JWL.

August 31, 2006


ORDER


This case comes before the court on the motion of Mary T. Malicoat for leave to withdraw as counsel for defendants ( doc. 43).

D. Kan. Rule 83.5.5 governing withdrawal of counsel provides:

An attorney seeking to withdraw must file and serve a motion to withdraw on all counsel of record, and provide a proposed order for the court. In addition, the motion must be served personally or by certified mail, restricted delivery, with return receipt requested on the withdrawing attorney's client. (Emphasis added.)

Ms. Malicoat has failed to comply with D. Kan. Rule 83.5.5 in that there has been no evidence that she has served a copy of her motion upon her clients. Notwithstanding, the court notes that defendants will continue to be represented by other counsel who have already entered their appearances in this case.

In consideration of the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The above-mentioned motion (doc. 43) is granted.

2. Ms. Malicoat is granted leave to withdraw as counsel of record for defendants. However, Ms. Malicoat shall serve a copy of the motion filed along with a copy of this order upon her clients.


Summaries of

BEEM v. DAVIS

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Aug 31, 2006
Case No. 04-3180-JWL (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2006)
Case details for

BEEM v. DAVIS

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN D. BEEM, Plaintiff, v. DALE A. DAVIS, D.D.S., et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Aug 31, 2006

Citations

Case No. 04-3180-JWL (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2006)

Citing Cases

Girard v. Miller

The sole point now determined, and deemed necessary to be determined, is that the duty devolving upon the…