Motion To Withdraw (Redacted)
Motion To Withdraw (Redacted)
Motion To Withdraw (Redacted)
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Appellant,
v.
AARON WALKER et al,
Appellees
_______________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
IN THE
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
September Term, 2014: No. 1553
September Term, 2014: No. 2099
September Term, 2015: No. 365
Consolidated Appeals
Mr. Walker and Mr. Ostronic have mutually agreed that it would be advantageous for Mr. Walker
to represent himself at this time and in this appeal. Mr. Walkers signature on this motion
constitutes his written consent to this motion.
2.
Such withdrawal will not cause Mr. Walker any prejudice. First, although Mr. Walker is not a
Maryland attorney, he is an attorney in good standing in both Virginia and Washington, D.C.
Indeed, Mr. Ostronic and Mr. Walker believe that this Court will benefit from the perspective of
two attorneys rather than just one. Second, this withdrawal is sought at an early stage of this
appeal.
3.
This withdrawal will not cause any other party any prejudice because Mr. Walker will not seek a
delay based on that withdrawal.
4.
Mr. Walker has been apprised of the consequences of his decision and consents to it knowingly
and intelligently.
WHERFO,CounseldMar.kqhti oemapsrF.PckOntiwhdyoefrAplkWnaisct.
1
Date: ____________________
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
F. Patrick Ostronic
932 Hungerford Drive, Ste. 28A
Rockville, Maryland 20850
fpolaw@fpolaw.com
(410) [redacted]
Pro Bono Counsel for Appellees
Date: ____________________