Because she didn't go to, what I would consider to be, a legitimate law school. If anything good comes of this, perhaps it will be that California will reconsider its decision to admit people to the bar that don't graduate from an ABA accredited law school.
O R D E R
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 20). Plaintiff apparently does not object to such withdrawal. (See Doc. 18.) Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted with the following conditions. Counsel remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of the Court’s show cause sanctions order and related proceedings, and Plaintiff remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of the Court’s previous order casting the court costs upon Plaintiff.
The Court further notes that this order shall not be construed to authorize Plaintiff’s counsel to breach any attorney-client privilege that may exist due to counsel’s representation of Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court notifies counsel that in issuing its show cause sanctions order, the Court did not rely upon the letter sent by Plaintiff purporting to discharge counsel (Doc. 18), nor does the Court intend to rely upon that document in future proceedings regarding sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel. Whether Plaintiff expressly authorized counsel to file the motion for reconsideration is irrelevant to the Court’s determination of whether the filing was legally frivolous.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of September, 2009.
Translation: Orly still has to show cause why she shouldn't be sanctioned to the tune or $10,000. And she had better think twice before divulging any attorney/client privileged communication between herself and Rhodes. (Who she rather obviously wants to make the scapegoat in this.)