- 32 -
tember 11, 2001, the date on which Mr. Wise signed his motion to
withdraw in each of the cases at docket Nos. 10001-00 and 10002-
00, Mr. Wise stated at the end of each such motion:
It is clear to the undersigned [Mr. Wise] that the
Petitioners do not wish to have him continue to repre-
sent them. The undersigned has had numerous conversa-
tions with them and their accountant. They are aware
of the significance of their decision to decline assis-
tance.
We reject the attempt in petitioners’ motion for reconsider-
ation to blame Mr. Binge and Mr. Bentivegna for petitioners’
conduct in these cases. Petitioners chose to ignore the warnings
of respondent, their own counsel Mr. Wise whom they fired, and
the Court. It was only after the Court issued Herbst I on March
27, 2002, that petitioners rehired Mr. Wise and suggested that
they wanted to do now what they should have done before the Court
issued that Opinion.13
12(...continued)
they were having second thoughts about continuing the representa-
tion [Mr. Wise’s representation] and were exploring ‘non-tradi-
tional’ alternatives with James Binge.”
13Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration indicates that on
Mar. 29, 2002, Mr. Wise called Ms. Herbst and Mr. Herbst to
advise them of Herbst I and the respective Orders of Dismissal in
the cases at docket Nos. 9999-00 and 10000-00 and the respective
Orders of Dismissal and Decision in the cases at docket Nos.
10001-00 and 10002-00. According to petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration, Mr. Wise advised Ms. Herbst and Mr. Herbst that
the deadline within which to file motions to vacate those Orders
was soon approaching and that something needed to be done immedi-
ately. We do not understand why Mr. Wise contacted Ms. Herbst
and Mr. Herbst on Mar. 29, 2002, since petitioners in the instant
cases had fired Mr. Wise around July 2001. See Rule 201; ABA,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011