Preview
Filing # 126246533 E-Filed 05/05/2021 04:26:01 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MASSEY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO: 20-000315-CA.
a/alo MARGARET PUCKETT and
MAX PUCKETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
FINCH LAW FIRM’S AND FROMANG & FINCH, P.A.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR MASSEY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., LLC
FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. moves to withdraw as counsel of
record for the Plaintiff, MASSEY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., (“MCGI”), and says:
1. FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. are counsel of record for
MCGI.
2. Pursuant to The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the Florida Rules of
Professional Conduct, Finch Law Firm and Fromang & Finch, P.A. immediately are precluded
from further representation of MCGI.
3. MCGI terminated the services of the law firms effective April 30, 2021.
4. Additionally, an adversarial relationship exists between MCGI and the law firms.
5. Where an adversarial relationship exists between an attorney and a client, the
attorney must be granted leave to withdraw. See Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1971);
Elton v. Daughtery, 931 So. 2d 201 (Fla. Sth DCA 2006).
6. In Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1971), an attorney sought withdrawal due
to an adverse relationship existing between the attorney and the client. Jd. The source of the
1adversity was a financial situation requiring the attorney to pay for the client’s litigation costs
without the attorney having any expectation of being paid due to insolvency of the client. /d.
The trial court denied the motion to withdraw. Jd. The attorney refused to go to trial and was
cited for direct criminal contempt by the trial court. Jd.
7. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court order of direct contempt ruling
that counsel was entitled to withdraw because the matter was not set for trial and there was time
for the client to retain substitute counsel. The Florida Supreme Court noted that “... to require
an attorney to represent a client whose interests are opposed to his own, is violative of the
professional standards of ethics, and could subject the lawyer to serious disciplinary action.”
Elton v. Daughtery, 931 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) citing and discussing Fisher, 248 So.
2d 479.
8. Pursuant to Rule 4-1.16 an attorney must/may terminate an attorney-client
relationship under the following conditions:
RULE 4-1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION
(a) When Lawyer Must Decline or Terminate Representation. Except as stated in
subdivision (c), 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 law;
b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed. Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may
withdraw from representing a client if
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect
on the interests of the client;
4) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden
on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the
client; or(5) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
9. Additionally, as established by Fisher, an adversarial attorney-client relationship
is a ground requiring counsel withdrawal.
10. Finally, a motion to withdraw should be granted as long as the interest of court
administration is not materially affected by the withdrawal.
11. In the instant case, the interests of and relationship between MCGI, FINCH LAW
FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. is clearly adverse and has subjected, and will continue
to subject, the law firms to allegations from MCGI’s management asserting and seeking “serious
disciplinary allegations.”
12. As noted by The Florida Supreme Court in Fisher, any continued representation
of MCGI by FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. with the adversarial
relationship will constitute professional conduct.
13. This case is not currently set for trial.
14. Continued representation by FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH P.A.
will result in conduct and allegations of conduct in violation of The Florida Rules of Professional
Conduct.
5. The client’s conduct in this case has made further provision of legal services
unreasonably difficult for the law firms.
6. The existence of the adversarial relationship constitutes good cause for withdrawal
under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.
7. There is sufficient time for MCGI to obtain replacement counsel.
8. Withdrawal will not materially adversely affect the client’s interest in this case.
9. A withdrawal of counsel in this case will not affect this Court’s administration of
the court or the administration of justice.WHEREFORE, FINCH LAW FIRM AND FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. request that the
Court issue its order:
A. withdrawing FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. and all of their
attorneys from further representation of MCGI;
B. staying the action for thirty (30) days to allow MCGI to obtain replacement counsel;
C. extending the time for compliance with any court deadlines or deadlines established
by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for period of thirty days after MCGI retrains replacement
counsel; and
D. allowing thirty (30) days to obtain replacement counsel.
FROMANG & FINCH P.A.
/s/ Alex Finch
Alex Finch, Esquire
FBN.: 0949220
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando, FL 32814
Tel: (407) 999-9739
Email: alex@fromangfinch.com
2nd Email: afinchlegal@gmail.com
Mark A. Fromang, Esquire
FBN.: 712620
Email: mark@fromangfinch.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all
parties/persons entitled to service on May 5, 2021 by Florida E-Portal e-service and via email
delivery to Massey Construction Group, Inc; mark@masseycg.com.
FROMANG & FINCH P.A.
/s/ Alex Finch
Alex Finch, Esquire
4FBN.: 0949220
Preview
Filing # 126246533 E-Filed 05/05/2021 04:26:01 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA MASSEY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO: 20-000315-CA. a/alo MARGARET PUCKETT and MAX PUCKETT, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Defendant. FINCH LAW FIRM’S AND FROMANG & FINCH, P.A.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR MASSEY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., LLC FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. moves to withdraw as counsel of record for the Plaintiff, MASSEY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., (“MCGI”), and says: 1. FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. are counsel of record for MCGI. 2. Pursuant to The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, Finch Law Firm and Fromang & Finch, P.A. immediately are precluded from further representation of MCGI. 3. MCGI terminated the services of the law firms effective April 30, 2021. 4. Additionally, an adversarial relationship exists between MCGI and the law firms. 5. Where an adversarial relationship exists between an attorney and a client, the attorney must be granted leave to withdraw. See Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1971); Elton v. Daughtery, 931 So. 2d 201 (Fla. Sth DCA 2006). 6. In Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1971), an attorney sought withdrawal due to an adverse relationship existing between the attorney and the client. Jd. The source of the 1adversity was a financial situation requiring the attorney to pay for the client’s litigation costs without the attorney having any expectation of being paid due to insolvency of the client. /d. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw. Jd. The attorney refused to go to trial and was cited for direct criminal contempt by the trial court. Jd. 7. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court order of direct contempt ruling that counsel was entitled to withdraw because the matter was not set for trial and there was time for the client to retain substitute counsel. The Florida Supreme Court noted that “... to require an attorney to represent a client whose interests are opposed to his own, is violative of the professional standards of ethics, and could subject the lawyer to serious disciplinary action.” Elton v. Daughtery, 931 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) citing and discussing Fisher, 248 So. 2d 479. 8. Pursuant to Rule 4-1.16 an attorney must/may terminate an attorney-client relationship under the following conditions: RULE 4-1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION (a) When Lawyer Must Decline or Terminate Representation. Except as stated in subdivision (c), 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 law; b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed. Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if (1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client; 4) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or(5) other good cause for withdrawal exists. 9. Additionally, as established by Fisher, an adversarial attorney-client relationship is a ground requiring counsel withdrawal. 10. Finally, a motion to withdraw should be granted as long as the interest of court administration is not materially affected by the withdrawal. 11. In the instant case, the interests of and relationship between MCGI, FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. is clearly adverse and has subjected, and will continue to subject, the law firms to allegations from MCGI’s management asserting and seeking “serious disciplinary allegations.” 12. As noted by The Florida Supreme Court in Fisher, any continued representation of MCGI by FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. with the adversarial relationship will constitute professional conduct. 13. This case is not currently set for trial. 14. Continued representation by FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH P.A. will result in conduct and allegations of conduct in violation of The Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. 5. The client’s conduct in this case has made further provision of legal services unreasonably difficult for the law firms. 6. The existence of the adversarial relationship constitutes good cause for withdrawal under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. 7. There is sufficient time for MCGI to obtain replacement counsel. 8. Withdrawal will not materially adversely affect the client’s interest in this case. 9. A withdrawal of counsel in this case will not affect this Court’s administration of the court or the administration of justice.WHEREFORE, FINCH LAW FIRM AND FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. request that the Court issue its order: A. withdrawing FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH, P.A. and all of their attorneys from further representation of MCGI; B. staying the action for thirty (30) days to allow MCGI to obtain replacement counsel; C. extending the time for compliance with any court deadlines or deadlines established by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for period of thirty days after MCGI retrains replacement counsel; and D. allowing thirty (30) days to obtain replacement counsel. FROMANG & FINCH P.A. /s/ Alex Finch Alex Finch, Esquire FBN.: 0949220 4767 New Broad Street Orlando, FL 32814 Tel: (407) 999-9739 Email: alex@fromangfinch.com 2nd Email: afinchlegal@gmail.com Mark A. Fromang, Esquire FBN.: 712620 Email: mark@fromangfinch.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all parties/persons entitled to service on May 5, 2021 by Florida E-Portal e-service and via email delivery to Massey Construction Group, Inc; mark@masseycg.com. FROMANG & FINCH P.A. /s/ Alex Finch Alex Finch, Esquire 4FBN.: 0949220