{"id":"court_ctb_623_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":623,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WI","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X In re: Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor.[1](#page-0-0) : : : : : : : : Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n## **SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE**\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") hereby submits this supplemental brief in support of its *Motion to Withdraw Appearance* (the \"Motion to Withdraw\") (Docket No. 543).\n\n**As a preliminary note, Brown Rudnick continues to fully appreciate that (i) payment of any fees or costs from the estate to the firm will require submission of fee applications in accordance with Code Section 330 and all applicable Federal and Local Rules, and entry of an order allowing the same; and (ii) until entry of such order, Brown Rudnick is required to, and will, continue to hold its retainer in the amount of \\$948,164.80 in its segregated retainer account with its customary bank (JPMorgan Chase) in accordance with the Code and all applicable Rules. Brown Rudnick has confirmed these commitments to both the Chapter 11 Trustee and the Office of the United States Trustee, and has informed them that if either of them believes that additional confirmations, reports or arrangements are appropriate as to that retainer, Brown Rudnick will conform to the same.**\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nIn further support of the Motion to Withdraw, Brown Rudnick states as follows:\n\n### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n2. On March 16, 2022, the Debtor filed an application to employ Brown Rudnick as counsel (Docket No. 86), and an order approving the retention thereof was subsequently entered on April 29, 2022 (Docket No. 293).\n\n3. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered an order directing appointment of a chapter 11 Trustee. Docket No. 465. The current chapter 11 trustee was appointed on July 7, 2022. Docket No. 514.\n\n4. On July 11, 2022, substitute counsel appeared for the Debtor, noting that additional counsel would be retained and appear shortly. *See* Docket Nos. 530 (Notice of Appearance), 531 (objection to trustee appointment noting Debtor's \"transition[] to new Chapter 11 counsel\").\n\n5. On July 13, 2022, Brown Rudnick filed its Motion to Withdraw, citing D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e), made applicable to the above-captioned proceeding by Local Rule 9083-4 of the Local Rules of this Court and noting that substitute counsel had filed a Notice of Appearance in satisfaction of the Rules. Docket No. 543.\n\n6. On July 14, 2022, additional counsel appeared on behalf of the Debtor. Docket Nos. 550-553.\n\n#### **ANALYSIS**\n\n7. Withdrawal of attorneys is governed by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e). Local Rule 9083-4 (incorporating D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e)). The rule states as follows:\n\n2\n\nWithdrawals of appearances may be accomplished only upon motion, which normally **will not be granted except upon a showing that other counsel has appeared or** that the party whose counsel seeks to withdraw may and has elected to proceed without counsel, and that the party has received actual notice of the motion to withdraw. **In cases where the party has failed to engage other counsel or file a personal appearance, where good cause exists** for permitting the withdrawal by the appearing counsel, the Court may grant the motion to withdraw the appearance after notice to the party that failure to either engage successor counsel or file a personal appearance will result in the granting of the motion to withdraw and may result in a dismissal or default being entered against the party.\n\nD. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e) (emphasis added).\n\n8. It follows from the language of the Rule that the court will inquire into whether \"good cause\" exists for the withdrawal of the counsel of record only if \"other counsel\" has not appeared. Here, two substitute counsels have appeared for the Debtor. Withdrawal should be permitted on that basis alone pursuant to the Rule.\n\n9. Regardless, even where \"other counsel\" does not appear, \"district courts have typically considered\" solely \"whether 'the prosecution of the suit is [likely to be] disrupted by the withdrawal of counsel.' \" *Whiting v. Lacara*, 187 F.3d 317, 320-21 (2d Cir. 1999)) (citing *Brown v. National Survival Games, Inc.*, No. 91–CV–221, 1994 WL 660533, at \\*3 (N.D.N.Y. Nov.18, 1994) (finding that because \"[discovery] is not complete and the case is not presently scheduled for trial .... granting the instant motion will not likely cause undue delay\"); *Malarkey v. Texaco, Inc.*, No. 81 Civ. 5224, 1989 WL 88709, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1989) (denying counsel's motion to withdraw when case is \"on the verge of trial readiness\"); *Rophaiel v. Alken Murray Corp.*, No. 94 Civ. 9064, 1996 WL 306457, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 1996) (denying motion to withdraw and noting concern with litigation delay because it would be \"too easy for a defendant to stall proceedings by inducing the withdrawal of its attorney by non-payment of fees\")); *see also, e.g., Lego A/S v. Best-Lock Construction Toys, Inc.*, 2019 WL 6770096, at \\*2 (D. Conn. Dec. 12, 2019) (\"[i]n the instance case, because Murtha Cullina has made no \"showing that other counsel has appeared\" on behalf of Best-Lock, Murtha Cullina must establish that \"good cause\" exists for its withdrawal and that Best-Lock received appropriate notice explaining the implications of counsel's withdrawal on Best-Lock's defense in this action\").\n\n10. This case is not proceeding to a trial, and there are no time-sensitive proceedings that would be disrupted by Brown Rudnick's withdrawal. A chapter 11 trustee has been appointed; thus, the Debtor's rights and duties (and those of counsel) are comparatively circumscribed. The Debtor is represented by multiple counsel of record. Withdrawal of Brown Rudnick will not disrupt this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n11. Good cause exists to grant the Motion to Withdraw.\n\n[This space intentionally left blank.]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully requests that the\n\nCourt grant leave to withdraw Brown Rudnick's appearance in the above-captioned case.\n\nDated: July 27, 2022\n\n## **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga*  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrundnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n\n64790593 v3\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nDebtor.[1](#page-5-0)\n\n:\n\nIn re: : Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI, William R. Baldiga, hereby certify that on the 27th day of July, 2022, Brown Rudnick\n\nLLP's Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Withdraw Appearance was sent by e-mail to\n\nall appearing parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system\n\nDated: July 27, 2022\n\n### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga*  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格区（District of Connecticut） 布里奇波特分部（Bridgeport Division）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），债务人。[1]\n第11章\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n支持撤回出庭代理动议的补充辩护状\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP（Brown Rudnick 律师事务所，简称「Brown Rudnick」）谨此提交本补充辩护状，以支持其《撤回出庭代理动议》（以下简称「《撤回动议》」）（ECF卷宗第 543 号）。\n\n作为初步说明，Brown Rudnick 继续充分认识到：(i) 从破产财产向本律所支付任何费用或支出均须按照《破产法典》第 330 条以及所有适用的《联邦破产诉讼规则》与《地方法院诉讼规则》提交费用申请，并取得准予支付的命令；且 (ii) 在该命令作出之前，Brown Rudnick 必须并将继续依照《法典》及所有适用规则，将其金额为 $948,164.80 的预付定金保留在其惯常往来银行（JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通银行））的独立定金账户中。Brown Rudnick 已向第11章破产受托人及 United States Trustee（联邦破产受托人办公室）双方确认了上述承诺，并已告知他们，若其中任何一方认为就该笔定金作出补充确认、报告或安排是妥当的，Brown Rudnick 将遵照执行。\n\n1 债务人以下列姓名为人所知：郭文贵（Guo Wengui）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n为进一步支持《撤回动议》，Brown Rudnick 陈述如下：\n事实背景\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，Ho Wan Kwok（债务人）依据《破产法典》第11章申请救济。\n\n2. 2022年3月16日，债务人提交了聘请 Brown Rudnick 担任律师的申请（ECF卷宗第 86 号），随后法院于 2022年4月29日 作出了批准聘用的命令（ECF卷宗第 293 号）。\n\n3. 2022年6月15日，法院作出了指示指定第11章受托人的命令。ECF卷宗第 465 号。现任第11章受托人于 2022年7月7日 获指定。ECF卷宗第 514 号。\n\n4. 2022年7月11日，接替律师代表债务人出庭，并注明不久后将聘请其他律师出庭。参见 ECF卷宗第 530 号（《出庭通知》）、第 531 号（对受托人指定的异议，其中注明债务人「向新第11章律师交接过渡」）。\n\n5. 2022年7月13日，Brown Rudnick 提交了其《撤回动议》，援引了经本院地方法规《Local Rule 9083-4》适用于上述标题案件的《康涅狄格区联邦地区民事诉讼地方法规》（D. Conn. L. Civ. R.）第 7(e) 条，并指出接替律师已提交《出庭通知》，符合相关规则的规定。ECF卷宗第 543 号。\n\n6. 2022年7月14日，其他律师代表债务人出庭。ECF卷宗第 550-553 号。\n分析\n\n7. 律师撤回代理受《D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e)》管辖。地方法规《Local Rule 9083-4》（纳入了《D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e)》）。该规则规定如下：\n撤回出庭代理仅得通过动议办理，且通常只有在证明已有其他律师出庭代理、或拟撤回代理的律师所代理的当事人可以且已选择无律师代表自行诉讼、并且该当事人已收到撤回动议的实际通知的情况下，方予准许。在当事人未能聘请其他律师或未提交亲自出庭声明的情况下，若已出庭律师撤回代理存在正当理由，法院可在通知该当事人（若其未能聘请接替律师或未提交亲自出庭声明将导致撤回动议获准并可能导致该当事人被裁定驳回起诉或缺席判决）之后，准许撤回出庭代理的动议。\n\n《D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e)》（强调为后加）。\n\n8. 从该规则的字面含义可知，法院仅在「其他律师」尚未出庭代理的情况下，才会审查记录在案的律师撤回代理是否存在「正当理由」。在本案中，已有两名接替律师代表债务人出庭。依据该规则，仅凭该项事实即应准许撤回代理。\n\n9. 无论如何，即便在「其他律师」未出庭的情况下，「地区法院通常也仅考量」「『撤回律师代理是否[可能]扰乱诉讼进程』」。Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320-21 (2d Cir. 1999)（援引 Brown v. National Survival Games, Inc., No. 91–CV–221, 1994 WL 660533, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 1994)（认定鉴于「[证据开示]尚未完成，且本案目前尚未排定审理日期……准许本动议不大可能造成不当延误」）；Malarkey v. Texaco, Inc., No. 81 Civ. 5224, 1989 WL 88709, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1989)（在案件「即将准备开庭审理」时驳回律师撤回代理的动议）；Rophaiel v. Alken Murray Corp., No. 94 Civ. 9064, 1996 WL 306457, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 1996)（驳回撤回动议并对诉讼延误表示关切，理由是被告通过不支付律师费诱使律师撤回代理来拖延诉讼程序「未免太容易了」））；另参见，例如 Lego A/S v. Best-Lock Construction Toys, Inc., 2019 WL 6770096, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. 12, 2019)（「在本案中，由于 Murtha Cullina 律师事务所未能证明『已有其他律师代表 Best-Lock 出庭』，Murtha Cullina 必须证明其撤回代理存在『正当理由』，且 Best-Lock 已收到向其解释律师撤回对 Best-Lock 在本诉讼中抗辩影响的适当通知」）。\n\n10. 本案并未进入审判程序，也不存在会因 Brown Rudnick 的撤回而受到干扰的时效敏感程序。第11章受托人已获指定；因此，债务人的权利和义务（以及律师的权利和义务）相对受限。债务人已有数位记录在案的律师代表。Brown Rudnick 的撤回代理不会扰乱本第11章案件。\n\n11. 准许《撤回动议》存在正当理由。\n\n[此页以下空白]\n\n据此，基于前述理由，下述签字人谨请\n\n法院准予撤回 Brown Rudnick 在上述标题案件中的出庭代理。\n\n日期：2022年7月27日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq.\n电话：(860) 509-6500\n传真：(860) 509-6653\n电子邮箱：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq.（特许出庭律师）\n收件人：Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq.（特许出庭律师）\n收件人：Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq.（特许出庭律师）\n电话：(212) 209-4800\n传真：(212) 209-4801\n电子邮箱：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\njjonas@brownrundnick.com\nbsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n\n64790593 v3\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分部\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok，债务人。[1]\n第11章\n案号：22-50073\n\n送达证书\n\n本人 William R. Baldiga 谨此证明，于 2022年7月27日，Brown Rudnick LLP 的《支持撤回出庭代理动议的补充辩护状》已通过本院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有已出庭的当事人。\n\n日期：2022年7月27日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq.\n电话：(860) 509-6500\n传真：(860) 509-6653\n电子邮箱：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq.（特许出庭律师）\nJeffrey L. Jonas, Esq.（特许出庭律师）\nBennett S. Silverberg, Esq.（特许出庭律师）\n电话：(212) 209-4800\n传真：(212) 209-4801\n电子邮箱：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\njjonas@brownrudnick.com\nbsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n\n1 债务人以下列姓名为人所知：郭文贵（Guo Wengui）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Je","Miles Guo","Murray"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1257,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:48:26"}