One of the many challenges of a “niche blog” — that is to say, a micro-bloggery like Minnesota Litigator — is that I have no budget for customer surveys and it is not always easy to tell whether a particular post, or a particular subject matter, is of interest to readers or not.
Take Mike v. Mike, a.k.a. “Ouroboros” (please). Enough already? Anyone out there care any more about this multi-layered, convoluted, Escheresque fee fest? (Anyone out there ever care about it?)
Political junkies are well aware of the phenomenon of the late Friday afternoon “news dump” — the release of damaging information when it is least likely to be noted (like, say, late on a Friday before a long weekend?). Is that what we have here?
Pursuant to Rule 83.7(b) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, the undersigned attorneys hereby notify the Court and counsel that Charles E. Jones and M. Gregory Simpson of Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P, hereby withdraw as counsel for Sulloway & Hollis, PLLC, and that Richard J. Thomas and Bryon G. Ascheman of the firm of Burke & Thomas hereby substitute as counsel for Sulloway & Hollis, PLLC. Charles E. Jones and Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P will remain as counsel for defendant Michel A. LaFond.
Messrs. Jones and Simpson have been nothing short of dogged, tenacious, and thorough in this case for Defendants Michael Lafond and Sulloway & Hollis. I would suggest with absolute confidence that it was not due to “performance reasons” that Sulloway & Hollis changed charioteers.
Rather, as the gladiators round the bend into what might be the final lap (better known as trial or maybe advanced settlement discussions), it seems likely that there was probably a divergence of interests between the lawyer, LaFond, and his law firm, Sulloway & Hollis. Previously yoked to the same gladiators, these steeds now need to go their separate ways.
Maybe this is meaningless. Maybe not.