Hammond v. TJ Litle and Co., Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KEETON, District Judge.
Hill & Barlow, Michael D. Weisman, and Robert A. Bertsche (collectively, “Hill & Barlow”) counsel for plaintiff Scott P. Hammond (“Hammond”), have moved for leave to withdraw, alleging that Hammond failed to cooperate and disregarded fee obligations to the firm. Hammond opposes the motion. *
For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Hill & Barlow must be permitted to withdraw.
I. Introduction
The opposing evidentiary submissions and the findings and conclusions to be drawn from them are sharply contested.
Hammond retained Hill & Barlow in August…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Commonwealth v. RomanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
3Cited by16 opinions
- Stair v. CalhounDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
- JMB Manufacturing, Inc. v. Harrison Manufacturing, LLC.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- Goldstein v. Albert (In Re Albert)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Kingdom v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
- Danvers Savings Bank v. Cuddy (In Re Cuddy)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.