Richard D Williams, apparently a name partner of the firm, is the attorney on the case. As I said last year, the case is entitled The Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen of St. Mary of The Angels' Parish et al v. Church Mutual Insurance Company et al. The "Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen" in this case are not the actual rector, wardens, and vestry, but the Bush-ACA appointed squatters, whom the California appeals court ruled in 2014 were not the legal corporate board.
The reason the case was originally filed in federal court appears to be to force Church Mutual into a quick settlement. My wife, a retired attorney, thinks Mr Williams, a name partner of the firm, would not have wanted to spend much time on this case, since the amount involved, while significant to Bush and her group, would not have been worthwhile to a law firm. However, Church Mutual seems to have been able to get the case sent back to LA Superior Court, where Judge Murphy scheduled it for a five-day trial beginning October 31, 2017.
The idea of preparing for a five-day trial, when his plan had been to force a quick settlement in federal court, seems not to have appealed to Mr Williams from the start. However, during a court hearing on the case on January 9, 2017, which a contingent from the St Mary's parish attended, the St Mary's group approached Mr Williams and explained to him (I'm told "in no uncertain terms") that the Bush group, his clients, were in fact not the rector, wardens, and vestrymen of the St Mary's parish. For that matter, once the real parish treasurer found the billings from Lytton Williams in 2016, I assume payments from parish accounts had already stopped, so I'm not sure under what terms Mr Williams was still proceeding with the case.
My wife thinks Mr Williams simply never put much time in on the case -- a simple google on the string Marilyn Bush St Mary would have been instructive, but Mr Williams was probably too busy to tell his secretary to do this. As my wife puts it, "Marilyn comes off as a senior churchlady and community leader. Nine times out of ten, you can assume that's correct. It's the one time that gets you." Mr Williams may well never have been aware of the other Rector, Wardens and Vestry cases. It wouldn't surprise me if Mrs Bush simply never told him about the 2015 trial or its outcome and gave some other explanation for why payments stopped. (It's worth pointing out that Church Mutual's attorney kept himself much better informed and attended both the 2015 trial and other court sessions.)
But following the January 9 encounter, things changed. Apparently after taking a closer look at the circumstances, Mr Williams petitioned Judge Murphy on March 3 to be relieved of the case. Mrs Bush and the others were not the rector, wardens, and vestry of the St Mary's parish. Church Mutual would certainly move for summary judgment against them on the basis that they lacked standing. This thing looked like a loser. Judge Murphy, from what I can gather, granted Mr Williams's request and gave the Bush group until April 7 to find a new attorney.
The Bush group has a major problem.
- Cut off from parish income, and having paid most of what they had to Lancaster & Anastasia LLP, it's hard to imagine what they have to pay a new attorney
- There's not enough money in the case to make it worth an attorney's while otherwise
- The appeals court has ruled that the Bush group is not the rector, wardens, and vestry of the parish, making the case a likely loser.
