Mike Boyle’s pro-bono counsel, David H. Madden, has asked the court for an order allowing him to withdraw as counsel because “circumstances have arisen which comprise a current conflict of interest between Madden and defendant Boyle.” In their response to the request, GlasWeld’s attorneys write, “[I]f the court is inclined to grant Madden’s motion, GlasWeld requests that regardless of whether Mike Boyle obtains new counsel or proceeds pro se [representing himself], the court hold defendants to the same rules that apply to all other litigant and enforce its order compelling complete responses to GlasWeld’s discovery by July 2, 2014.”
GlasWeld filed the alleged patent infringement lawsuit against Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, in late 2012. The company later added Christopher Boyle, his son, as a defendant in the lawsuit.
“Because a conflict of interest has arisen between Madden and defendant Boyle, there is good cause for the court to terminate the appointment of Madden as his pro bono counsel in this matter,” Madden writes in his motion. “In addition, because of this conflict of interest and the absence of any factors weighing against permitting withdrawal at this time, the court should also grant Madden’s motion to withdraw as Boyle’s attorney of record.”
In his declaration to the court, Madden writes, “Recently, a number of events have occurred that led me to believe that a conflict of interest may have developed between me and Boyle. I investigated these events and applicable rules, and I now believe that I cannot properly continue to represent Boyle in this matter.”
He did not go into detail about the conflict of interest.
GlasWeld’s attorneys filed a response to the motion, writing, “The court has recognized that appointment of new pro bono counsel for Mike Boyle would cause undue delay in this matter. Madden’s withdrawal, if permitted, should not be allowed to create the same effect. GlasWeld is cognizant that Madden accepted this pro bono appointment as a public service and that the court may be inclined to grant Madden’s motion rather than force him to continue his representation of Mike Boyle. GlasWeld is further sympathetic to the difficulties related to dealing with Madden’s client. However, GlasWeld should not be prejudiced by related delays, especially in light of defendants’ ongoing strategy of delay. Accordingly, GlasWeld takes no position with respect to the motion.
“[T]he motion, and Madden’s accompanying declaration provide only a nebulous description of the alleged conflict of interest, which does not make it clear the nature of the conflict. Accordingly, GlasWeld cannot evaluate whether a conflict exists that would preclude Madden from continuing his representation of Mike Boyle and leaves that issue to the court,” they continue.
GlasWeld attorneys note that no other attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Mike Boyle.
“[I]f Madden is allowed to withdraw, that withdrawal will prejudice GlasWeld by causing yet more delay unless defendants are required to adhere to deadlines ….” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim.
The court has not issued a decision at press time.
To read a copy of Madden’s motion to terminate pro-bono appointment, click here.
To read GlasWeld’s response to Madden’s motion, click here.