6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 113 Filed in ED/OK on 07/26/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JEFFREY LOWE, LAUREN LOWE,
`GREATER WYNNEWOOD EXOTIC
`ANIMAL PARK, LLC, and TIGER KING,
`LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 20-cv-423-JFH
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court are two Motions to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Defendants [Dkt.
`
`No. 77; Dkt. No. 102] and one Notice of Non-Representation [Dkt. No. 112], each filed by Daniel
`
`J. Card (“Mr. Card”), counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Lowe, Lauren Lowe, Greater Wynnewood
`
`Exotic Animal Park, LLC, and Tiger King, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On March 17, 2021, Mr. Card filed his first Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for
`
`Defendants. Dkt. No. 77. The entirety of counsel’s stated reason for seeking withdrawal was the
`
`two-word phrase “health reasons.” Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”)
`
`filed a response noting: no other attorney had entered an appearance on behalf of Defendants; Mr.
`
`Card’s motion did not mention substitute counsel or a timeframe by which new counsel would
`
`appear; Defendants had a history of delay in obtaining new counsel in other litigation; and the
`
`United States’ claims were time-sensitive. Dkt. No. 81. The United States also cited a Western
`
`District of Oklahoma case where another Jeffrey Lowe-owned entity failed to obtain counsel for
`
`more than two and a half years after the district court granted a motion to withdraw and ordered
`
`the entity to have new counsel enter an appearance within thirty days. See Big Cat Rescue Corp.
`
`1
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 113 Filed in ED/OK on 07/26/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`v. G.W. Exotic Animal Mem’l Found., No. CIV-14-377-SLP (W.D. Okla.). On March 30, 2021,
`
`the Court entered a minute order denying without prejudice Mr. Card’s Motion to Withdraw and
`
`noting that it would entertain such a motion upon the entry of appearance of new counsel for
`
`Defendants. Dkt. No. 82.
`
`On June 11, 2021, Mr. Card filed his second Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for
`
`Defendants. Dkt. No. 102. Counsel’s stated reasons for seeking withdrawal were, first, that “a
`
`conflict has arisen among the multiple clients/Defendants and attorney such that continued
`
`representation is impossible without violating ethical rules,” and second, that withdrawal was
`
`necessary “for all reasons enumerated by [Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct] 1.16(b)(1)-
`
`(6), the precise nature of which cannot be divulged upon counsel from the OBA.” Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.
`
`The United States filed a response re-urging similar arguments as before. Dkt. No. 107. Mr. Card
`
`filed a one-paragraph reply, claiming, “Counsel has a conflict. The undersigned cannot be any
`
`clearer than that and still comply with Rule 1.6.” Dkt. No. 109. On July 13, 2021, the Court
`
`entered a minute order denying without prejudice Mr. Card’s second Motion to Withdraw and
`
`noting that it would entertain such a motion upon the entry of appearance of new counsel for
`
`Defendants. Dkt. No. 110. The same day, the Court set an in-person show cause hearing for
`
`September 16, 2021 regarding two filings from the United States: a Notice of Defendants’
`
`Continued Noncompliance and a Motion for Costs. Dkt. No. 111.
`
`The day after the Court denied without prejudice his second withdrawal motion, Mr. Card
`
`filed a “Notice of Non-Representation.” Dkt. No. 112. Mr. Card claimed his health issues “do[]
`
`not seem relevant to the Court whatsoever;” it “was absolutely evident that [he] could not continue
`
`to represent the Defendants; he has “a conflict no reasonable person could deny” with his clients;
`
`he “clearly stated [that] it was and remains to be impossible for [him] to represent the Defendants
`
`2
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 113 Filed in ED/OK on 07/26/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`and stay in compliance with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Responsibility;” there is a
`
`“plethora of reasons” for him to withdraw that “he cannot explicitly state;” the Court “gave counsel
`
`a choice [to] do as I say or breach your ethical duties;” and that “if the Court demands he show up
`
`to a Show Cause hearing to say nothing (which is inevitable), then he will. But counsel is not
`
`advocating for anyone.” Id. at 1-2 (emphasis in original).
`
`II.
`
`AUTHORITY
`
`Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6, Confidentiality of Information, states in
`
`pertinent part:
`
`(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the
`representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent,
`the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the
`representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
`(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to representation of a
`client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary . . .
`(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with
`these Rules;
`(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a
`controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a
`defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer
`based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to
`respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's
`representation of the client; or
`(6) as permitted or required to comply with these Rules, other
`law or a court order.
`. . .
`Comment 14: Paragraph (b) permits disclosure only to the extent
`the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to
`accomplish one of the purposes specified . . . . If the disclosure
`will be made in connection with a judicial proceeding, the
`disclosure should be made in a manner that limits access to the
`information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to
`know it and appropriate protective orders or other arrangements
`should be sought by the lawyer to the fullest extent practicable.
`5 O.S. App. 3-A Rule 1.6.
`
`3
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 113 Filed in ED/OK on 07/26/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation,
`
`states in pertinent part:
`
`(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a
`client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from
`the representation of a client if:
`(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of
`Professional Conduct or other law;
`(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs
`the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
`(3) the lawyer is discharged.
`(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from
`representing a client if:
`(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse
`effect on the interests of the client;
`(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's
`services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or
`fraudulent;
`(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime
`or fraud;
`(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers
`repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental
`disagreement;
`(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the
`lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given
`reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the
`obligation is fulfilled;
`(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial
`burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably
`difficult by the client; or
`(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
`(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or
`permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When
`ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation
`notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
`5 O.S. App. 3-A Rule 1.16.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 113 Filed in ED/OK on 07/26/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The Court finds it relevant first to quote the record it made during the parties’ first
`
`appearance before it:
`
`THE COURT: We're here for a status conference this morning to
`discuss a number of things.
`Let me start out by talking about the rules of professional
`responsibility. Citing the preamble to Title 5 of Oklahoma Statute
`Annotated, appendix three, rules of professional responsibility: A
`lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those
`who serve it, including judges and other lawyers and public officials.
`I never thought that I would start a hearing citing the rules of
`professional responsibility. Professionalism does not mean one has
`to compromise one's client's meritorious positions. Acting without
`professionalism does not serve a client's interest. It certainly does
`not serve the bar and it does not serve the interest of justice. It also
`does not serve the Court, and the Court does not appreciate actions
`in communications that lack professionalism.
`Are there any counsel on the line that have any questions regarding
`the Court's position on professionalism?
`Dkt. No. 50 at 4. Mr. Card’s recent filing makes clear that he is not concerned with the Court’s
`
`message.1
`
`First, Mr. Card claims that his health problems did “not seem relevant to the Court
`
`whatsoever.” Dkt. No. 112 at ¶ 1. Mr. Card did not put his health at issue such that the Court
`
`could properly or accurately evaluate its impact on his representation of his clients. The entirety
`
`of the record regarding Mr. Card’s status is one sentence: “Counsel seeks to withdraw for health
`
`reasons.” Dkt. No. 77 at ¶ 2. This bland representation does not provide sufficient factual
`
`explanation for the Court to render an assessment.
`
`Second, Mr. Card’s reasons for seeking withdrawal are by no means “absolutely evident”
`
`or “clearly stated” to the Court. Dkt. No. 112 (emphasis in original). Mr. Card gives no description
`
`
`1 Mr. Card’s lack of professionalism in this case is beginning to look like a pattern.
`
`5
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 113 Filed in ED/OK on 07/26/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`of this “plethora” [Dkt. No. 112 (emphasis in original)] beyond that “a conflict has arisen” and
`
`that “continued representation is impossible without violating ethical rules” [Dkt. No. 102]. This
`
`is another bland representation which does not provide sufficient factual explanation for the Court
`
`to render an assessment.
`
`The Court is cognizant of Mr. Card’s duty of confidentiality toward his clients under Rule
`
`1.6 However, Rule 1.6(b) makes clear that disclosure of confidential information is permitted
`
`when a controversy between the lawyer and the client arises or where disclosure is required by a
`
`tribunal. At no time has Mr. Card sought to file an ex parte motion, convene a sealed hearing, or
`
`produce information for in camera review regarding the perceived conflicts he has with his clients.
`
`He has provided the Court with nothing of substance to evaluate his claim of ethical conflict. The
`
`various other interests in this case deserve more.
`
`Third, Mr. Card has apparently shared information with the OBA ethics counsel which he
`
`has not bothered to share with the Court. He claims the ethics counsel “certainly doesn’t” deny
`
`that a conflict exists. Dkt. No. 112 at ¶ 2. Again, Mr. Card supplies the Court with nothing to
`
`assess his claim, the OBA’s conclusion, or the facts underlying them.2
`
`Fourth, Mr. Card’s characterization of the Court’s minute orders denying without prejudice
`
`his withdrawal motions are not based in fact. Mr. Card ignores the Court’s statements that it would
`
`entertain his motions upon entry of new counsel for Defendants. Dkt. No. 82; Dkt. No. 110. The
`
`concern as to how Defendants will be represented in this lawsuit is not trivial—particularly since
`
`two Defendants are entities which cannot represent themselves pro se. See Harrison v. Wahatoyas,
`
`
`2 The Court notes that the OBA ethics counsel provides informal oral and written advisory
`opinions. See Tips from the OBA Ethics Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association (last visited July
`23, 2021), https://www.okbar.org/ec/. Mr. Card does not specify whether he received an oral or a
`written opinion from the OBA, or whether he received an advisory opinion at all.
`
`6
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 113 Filed in ED/OK on 07/26/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`L.L.C., 252 F.3d 552, 556-57 (10th Cir. 2001) (“As a general matter, a corporation or other
`
`business entity can only appear in court through an attorney and not through a non-attorney
`
`corporate officer appearing pro se.”).
`
`Fifth, Mr. Card’s citations to Rule 1.16(a) and (b) ignore their preamble—"Except as stated
`
`in paragraph (c)”—and the subsection that directly follows it: “A lawyer must comply with
`
`applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation.
`
`When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good
`
`cause for terminating the representation.” 5 O.S. App. 3-A Rule 1.16(c).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel for Defendants, Daniel J. Card, shall appear at
`
`the in-person September 16, 2021 show cause hearing. At the hearing, the Court will provide Mr.
`
`Card the opportunity to re-urge his motion to withdraw with sufficient factual basis and detail for
`
`the Court to make a reasonable assessment of the proper basis for withdrawal.3
`
`Dated this 26th day of July 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`JOHN F. HEIL, III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`3 When provided a proper foundation and upon request, the Court will allow Mr. Card the
`opportunity to provide the bases for his motion ex parte and/or under sealed record to the extent
`he wishes to address any health or conflict issues.
`
`7
`
`