Leida Margaretha’s lawyer quits, says Leida persists in ‘criminal or fraudulent’ course of action EXCLUSIVE
90 Day Fiancé star Leida Margaretha is still facing more than two dozen felony charges for allegedly stealing money from companies she used to work for. The 37-year-old’s legal troubles just got worse as her lawyer in multiple cases asks to withdraw due to financial and ethical reasons.
On Thursday, Leida’s attorney Taylor M. Hart filed motions to withdraw as her counsel in three separate criminal cases, including her most recent case with 24 felony counts.
“I respectfully move this Court for an Order removing me as Mr. Margaretha’s attorney of record and allowing me to withdraw from representing her in the above-cited cases,” Mr. Hart wrote in his motion.
The motion includes a list of allegations as grounds for Mr. Hart’s removal. Below are a few excerpts:
• Ms. Margaretha has failed to substantially fulfill her financial obligations for my firm’s representation of her in 25CF14, thus granting me a basis to move to withdraw under SCR 20:1.16(b)(5).
• Beyond that, there have been recent events that have created an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship such that I no longer feel I can ethically or competently represent Ms. Margaretha further. Without breaking attorney-client privilege, I also believe that there is now a conflict of interest between myself, my firm, and Ms. Margaretha.
• I also believe I have separate personal bases to move to withdraw from representing Ms.
Margaretha under SCR 20:1.16(b)(2), 20:1.16(b)(4), 20:1.16(b)(6), and 20:1.16(b)(7).
In his entries, Mr. Hart references the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. Below are the sections cited by Mr. Hart as reasons for withdrawing as Leida Margaretha’s attorney (emphasis added):
SCR 20:1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION
(b) Except as stated in par. (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
Mr. Hart sent Leida a letter making her aware of his motions to withdraw, and entered it into the court record:
Dear Leida,
I write to follow up on our previous correspondence pursuant to Adams County Local Rule 3.03c to provide you with a copy of my Motion to Withdraw filed in each case. Please find a copy of that motion enclosed with this letter.
Pursuant to that same Local Rule, you have 11 days to file any objection to my withdrawal in writing to the Court. If an objection is timely filed, the Court will schedule your cases for a hearing to address my motion in court. If you do not object, you do not [have] to file anything or otherwise do anything or take any action.
Very truly yours,
Attorney Taylor M. Hart
State Bar No. 1097610
Mr. Hart’s motion to withdraw has been granted in one of Leida’s cases. There has yet to be a ruling in the other two criminal cases in which he represents Leida.
90 DAY FIANCE Leida Margaretha’s baby’s death ruled non-accidental by Medical Examiner’s Office
Asa Hawks is a writer and editor for Starcasm. You can contact Asa via Twitter, Facebook, or email at starcasmtips(at)yahoo.com
