- 32 -
Court issued that Opinion.15
We find that petitioners have only themselves to blame for
the consequences resulting from their actions and inactions in
these cases and that they should bear responsibility for their
conduct. It was petitioners who decided not to have these cases
heard on the merits. They decided not to cooperate with, and to
ignore the warnings of, respondent, their own counsel Mr. Wise
whom they fired, and the Court.
The Court provided petitioners in these cases ample opportu-
nity to present relevant information to the Court even (1) after
respondent orally moved to dismiss these cases at the calendar
call on October 15, 2001, (2) after the trial took place on the
same date, and (3) after respondent filed on November 13, 2001, a
written motion to hold petitioners in default in each of the
cases at docket Nos. 10764-00 and 10767-00 and a written motion
to dismiss for lack of prosecution in each of the cases at docket
Nos. 10765-00 and 10766-00. Petitioners declined to provide any
15Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration indicates that on
Apr. 22, 2002, Mr. Wise called Mr. Richards to advise him of
Richards I and the respective Orders of Dismissal in the cases at
docket Nos. 10764-00 and 10767-00 and the respective Orders of
Dismissal and Decision in the cases at docket Nos. 10765-00 and
10766-00. According to petitioners’ motion for reconsideration,
Mr. Wise advised Mr. Richards that the deadline within which to
file motions to vacate those Orders was soon approaching and that
something needed to be done immediately. We do not understand
why Mr. Wise contacted Mr. Richards on Apr. 22, 2002, since
petitioners in the instant cases had fired Mr. Wise around July
2001. See Rule 201; ABA, Ann. Model Rules of Profl. Conduct R.
7.3 (1999).
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