- 31 -
him. As made clear in Mr. Wise’s motion to withdraw, Mr. Wise
made repeated efforts throughout the period starting in at least
June 2001 to September 11, 2001, to make Mr. Richards understand
that there could be sanctions if Mr. Richards followed the advice
of Mr. Binge and Mr. Bentivegna.14 On September 11, 2001, the
date on which Mr. Wise signed his motion to withdraw in each of
the cases at docket Nos. 10765-00 and 10766-00, Mr. Wise stated
at the end of each such motion:
It is clear to the undersigned [Mr. Wise] that the
Petitioner does not wish to have him continue to repre-
sent him. The undersigned has had numerous conversa-
tions with him and his accountant. He is aware of the
significance of his decision to decline assistance.
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 Richards 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
14Contrary to the allegation in petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration that Mr. Binge and Mr. Bentivegna never shared
“non-traditional” beliefs with Mr. Richards because he was
regarded as a “traditional” client, Mr. Wise’s respective motions
to withdraw in the cases at docket Nos. 10765-00 and 10766-00
stated that Mr. Richards “indicated that he was having second
thoughts about continuing the representation [Mr. Wise’s repre-
sentation] and was exploring ‘non-traditional’ alternatives with
James Binge.”
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011