Sanford v. Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, No. 15-2424 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseLarkin moved to withdraw as counsel of Maid-Rite and two of the company's employees, after the franchisor failed to pay for its legal fees and to provide important information related to its defense. The district court denied Larkin's motion. The court concluded that, based on the record, it was presumptively appropriate for Larkin to seek withdrawal where defendants' failure to provide the firm with important information related to their defense also failed to fulfill an obligation to the firm. Further, defendants were warned several times and notified about the motion to withdraw. The court also concluded that defendants were not prejudiced by the withdrawal nor were third parties prejudiced by the withdrawal. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court erred in denying defendant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw after defendant failed to pay legal fees and provide important information related to its defense; under the circumstances presented, it does not appear that counsel's withdrawal would prejudice defendant or third parties. [ March 10, 2016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.