This is clearly the tip of an iceberg, the great mass of which is invisible, especially to me. Among other things, an attorney who withdraws as counsel to a client is ethically required to give reasons that do not disclose anything that would damage the client's case -- non-payment, a reason we've seen given in a couple of recent instances, may not be the actual reason in such cases.
While my wife and I think Mr Lancaster has been struggling with difficult clients and a bad case, we've grown increasingly sympathetic to him over these five years as we've learned of episodes where Mrs Bush and others have verbally abused him in the courthouse hallway and elsewhere.
One reason an attorney can withdraw from representing a client is if the client refuses to cooperate in preparing the case or refuses to take the attorney's advice. Something like this may be operating here.
As a lay observer, it's hard for me to avoid thinking that the legal situation of the Bush group is deteriorating quickly, and their most prudent step would probably be to find a way to settle the case and minimize costs. Even if Mrs Bush is determined to fight collection efforts to the bitter end, this will still cost her and her estate considerably more in shielding assets and additional legal fees, as well as damaging her health and peace of mind.
As of right now, I've got to think that a credible settlement offer from Mrs Bush would involve, at least among other things, dropping the appeal of the Strobel decision and assuming the $600,000 mortgage Mrs Bush took out against the parish property without having title. However, with the appeal proceeding and having not much prospect of success, the window of opportunity here is rapidly closing, and with the damage suit trial looming in November, the vestry has less and less incentive to negotiate.
My surmise, and I repeat this is surmise, is that Mr Lancaster recognized that the strategy of delay he pursued for much of the cases' history is running out, the appeal in his judgment is not going to succeed, and he advised Mrs Bush to pursue a settlement while she still has the appeal as a bargaining chip. My impression of Mrs Bush is that, in a psychic Führerbunker, she's never going to surrender. Thus Mr Lancaster withdraws from a hopeless situation in which Mrs Bush is unlikely to extricate herself.
A continuing question is whether, with Mr Lancaster already having withdrawn as counsel to the ACA, the Diocese of the West, Frederick Rivers, and the Kangs, those defendants will secure counsel. If they have, their counsel will need to appear at the August 10 pre-trial conference; if not, they will need to appear in person. But now without counsel who can present a unified negotiating position, they're in a situation where they can each be individually liable for multimillion-dollar damages, but the deep pocket, Mrs Bush, won't make the sort of concessions that might get them out of very serious legal difficulties.
They all may well be in denial, of course.
