Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

1

DANIEL YOUNG, Pro Se


2 207 N. 377th Avenue
Tonapah, Arizona 85354-8233
3 (623) 205-1583
Defendant
4

8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA


9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
10

11 RICHARD AMUNDSON, a single man,


CASE NO.: CV2014-009662
12
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT DANIEL YOUNGS
13
vs. MOTION TO REMOVE ATTORNEY
14 LYNDON STEIMEL AND ALLOW
SUBSTITUTION AS PRO SE
15 LAURA L. AMUNDSON, a single woman,
and DANIEL YOUNG, a single man, et al
16

17
Defendant.
18

19
Defendant, DANIEL YOUNG (Young) appearing pro se moves the Court to
20
enter an Order and remove Defendants attorney Lyndon Steimel and instead allow
21

22 Defendant to proceed as Pro Se on all future matters pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 5.1

23 and the Professional Rules of Conduct E.R. 1.16(a). This Motion is supported by the
24
accompanying Memorandum of Law and all documents on file with the Court.
25
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
26

27
Defendant files this Motion requesting that the Court enter an Order removing his

28 attorney of record, Lyndon Steimel (Attorney), and allow him to proceed pro se in lieu of

1
substitution of another attorney. The basis for this Motion is exclusively due to the
1

2 Attorneys ethical violations and misconduct violating attorney-client agreement which has

3 deprived Defendant to proper representation. The Attorney after Defendant has requested
4
has refused to file a Notice of Withdrawal whereby Defendant now brings this matter directly
5
before the Court as the trial has been scheduled for August 1, 2016.
6

7
I. FACTS

8 Plaintiff brought this cause of action over the validity of a Quit Claim Deed for
9 property owned by Plaintiff and Defendant Laura Amundson during their marriage which
10
was distributed under a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Plaintiff also included Defendant
11
into this action improperly based on the fact that Defendant subsequently married Defendant
12

13 Amundson. Defendant made his initial appearance in this action and filed his Answer to

14 Plaintiffs Complaint on August 27, 2014.


15
Shortly thereafter, Defendant retained attorney Lyndon Steimel (Attorney) for legal
16
representation and Attorney thereafter filed his Notice of Appearance on October 23, 2014,
17
pursuant to A.R.C.P. Rule 5.1.
18

19 From that time to the present, the actions by the Attorney in his representation of

20 Defendant have violated professional ethical standards and specifically, his misconduct
21
violates:
22
1) E.R. 1.4 Communication (informed consent)
23
In this case the Attorney stipulated to dismissal of third party Defendants
24

25 without prior client consent, failed to communicate or obtain prior consent on

26 many critical matters;


27
2) E.R. 1.3 Diligence (act promptly)
28

2
The Attorney has delayed and requested numerous extensions to complete
1

2 discovery which is evidenced by the Court docket; Attorney has intentionally

3 omitted critical facts relevant to Defendants defense and which he was


4
instructed to include in the response and cross-motion for summary judgment;
5
Attorney was absent and unavailable for expert examination of the Quit Claim
6

7
Deed which is a critical document to the issues before this Court.

8 3) E.R. 3.2 Expediting Litigation


9 Attorney has grossly failed to expedite the litigation process as shown by the
10
voluminous Court filings over the period of 20 months to the detriment of
11
Defendant. In fact, although the parties had a prior agreement for Defendant
12

13 to make affordable monthly payments, the Attorney recently presented to

14 Defendant an invoice for services which exceeded $40,670.00 as of April 20,


15
2016. (Exhibit 1).
16
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
17
The Arizona Lawyer Rules of Professional Conduct dictate what is expected between
18

19 the parties in an attorney-client relationship and Defendant has shown many violations. As

20 such, Defendant is entitled to discharge his Attorney under the provisions of E.R. 1.16(d)(4)
21
at any time, with or without cause. See, In State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. St.
22
Joseph's Hospital, 107 Ariz. 498, 489 P.2d 837 (1971), the Supreme Court noted: . . . the law
23
in Arizona is clear that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
24

25 relationship at any time with or without cause. . . and may without the consent of his attorney

26 settle and compromise his claim with his adversary . . . we . . . reaffirm the power of the
27
client at any time to discharge his attorney and to settle or compromise his own claim. Our
28

3
law does not bind a person to one attorney merely because he has entered into a contingent
1

2 fee relationship.

3 Further, once a decision has been made that the attorney-client relationship is broken
4
and one party has terminates -client agreement, the Court governs withdrawal by approval
5
which is provided at A.R.C.P. Rule 5.1(a)(2)(A) states:
6

7
(A) Where such application bears the written approval of the
client, it shall be accompanied by a proposed written order and
8 may be presented to the court ex parte. The withdrawing attorney
shall give prompt notice of the entry of such order, together with
9 the name and residence of the client, to all other parties or
10
their attorneys.

11 In this case, the requirement for client approval is a non-issue as Defendant has
12
discharged his attorney and provided proper notice. The then remaining relevant issue that
13
the Court must consider in determining approval is that the trial in this matter has been
14
scheduled and Rule 5.1(a)(2)(C) further provides:
15

16 (C) No attorney shall be permitted to withdraw as


attorney of record after an action has been set for trial, (i)
17 unless there shall be endorsed upon the application therefor either
the signature of a substituting attorney stating that such attorney
18
is advised of the trial date and will be prepared for trial,
19 or the signature of the client stating that the client is advised of
the trial date and has made suitable arrangements to be prepared
20 for trial, or (ii) unless the court is satisfied for good cause shown
that the attorney should be permitted to withdraw.
21

22 Once again, in the instant case, Defendant is prepared to move forward to the trial

23 without attorney representation and proceed pro se and has made arrangements for non-
24
attorney legal assistance for document preparation as necessary. Further, If a defendant
25
makes a timely and unequivocal request to proceed pro se, the court must grant that request if
26

27
it finds the request was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. See, Lamar, 205

28 Ariz. at 435-36, 22, 72 P.3d at 835-36 (stating upon compliance with requirements request

4
to proceed pro se should be granted) citing Armant v. Marquez, 772 F.2d 552, 555 (9th Cir.
1

2 1985))); Cornell, 179 Ariz. at 324, 878 P.2d at 1362.

3 In this case, based on the Attorneys gross inadequacies in legal representation


4
Defendant has concluded that he would be better off without representation and is confident
5
that he can with assistance be more effective. Accordingly, Defendant additionally waives
6

7
his right to obtain substitution of counsel and is entitled to proceed pro se as Courts have

8 taken notice in determining pro se appropriateness found the right of self-representation


9 may be exercised only after a determination that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and
10
voluntarily waived the right to counsel. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835; State v. Rigsby, 160 Ariz.
11
178, 182, 772 P.2d 1, 5 (1989); State v. De Nistor, 143 Ariz. 407, 412, 694 P.2d 237, 242
12

13 (1985).

14 III. CONCLUSION
15
Based on the Attorneys failure to participate in any meaningful discovery, including
16
disclosure of critical evidence Defendant has been prejudiced and denied his due process to
17

18
the right to effective representation. Further, Defendant has undergone extreme emotional

19 stress caused by the Attorney and his damages as a result go beyond improper representation
20 and warrant a separate cause of action for malicious representation. Accordingly,
21
Defendants request to proceed pro se should be granted as he can suffer no worse
22
prejudice than already suffered.
23

24 WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court remove Attorney Lyndon Steimel

25 as his attorney of record and order Defendant to proceed pro se and for such other or
26
further relief as the Court deems proper.
27
DATED this 26th day of June, 2016.
28

5
1
/s/ Daniel Young
2 DANIEL YOUNG, Pro Se
3
Defendant

6
Original e-filed with the Clerk this
7 26th day of June, 2016; with a copy
*delivered electronically to:
8

9 *Honorable Lori Horn Bustamante


Maricopa County Superior Court
10
201 W. Jefferson Street
11 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
12
Lyndon B. Steimel, Esq.
13 14614 N. Kierland Blvd. Suite N-135
14
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Attorney for Defendants
15

16 Lisa M. Montes
233 N. 3rd Street., #100
17
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
18 Attorney for Plaintiff

19
/s/ Daniel Young
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28