A hearing on several previously filed motions had been scheduled for 24 February 2021, after having been continued from December 2020. When scheduled, Mr. Juravin’s attorneys told him that neither his preparation for nor his presence at the hearing was necessary.
Only days before the hearing, Mr. Juravin was informed that his attorneys were filing a Motion to Withdraw.
Mr. Juravin’s attorneys, however, had prepared well for and were definitively instructed and expected to argue the motions previously set for hearing, as one or more of them may have been dispositive of crucial issues in the case.
Attorney Ralph Strzalkowski had informed Mr. Juravin by email that the hearing would likely go on as planned, despite the Motion to Withdraw. It is worth noting that both attorneys had been paid both for their time for preparation and for anticipated time for argument.
It is Mr. Juravin’s strong belief and informed opinion that, against his interests and express instruction, his Counsel insisted that the Court defer addressing the Motions set for hearing that day and instead hear the Motion to Withdraw at once.
It is also Mr. Juravin’s strong belief that his Counsel knew that such action would increase his litigation costs and also cause damage not only to his interests but to his credibility, as undeniably evidenced by Attorney Randazza’s response to the filing of the Motion and his baseless accusations, clearly intended to sway the Court’s opinion of Mr. Juravin going forward.
Although Mr. Juravin speaks and understands English well, he is originally from Israel, and Hebrew is his first language. And while he is grateful that the Court required his attorneys to allow his presence at the hearing, he does not have the vocabulary or legal knowledge to advocate strongly for or defend himself against his own attorneys (and Attorney Randazza, against whom his own attorneys were not defending him), especially when “put on the spot” and completely unprepared.
Mr. Juravin’s effectiveness was further hindered by the fact that he has always maintained that there is and has been no fundamental disagreement whatsoever between him and his attorneys regarding the direction of the case and that he has never sought to “...take actions with which his Counsel have a fundamental disagreement.”
To the contrary, Mr. Juravin has followed the advice of counsel throughout the pendency of these proceedings.
The only “disagreement” that existed between Mr. Juravin and Attorney Strzalkowski at the time of the filing of the Motion to Withdraw was that Mr. Juravin felt “extorted” by Attorney Ralph Strzalkowski’s threats of withdrawal as a tactic to renegotiate his rate of compensation only days prior to the 24 February hearing date, after which he anticipated the case would become more complex and more time-consuming.
Mr. Juravin had also been somewhat unhappy that he had paid for and had been promised and expected that a variety of projects would have been timely completed, and they were not.
However, this was certainly not a “fundamental disagreement” and had nothing to do with the direction of the case. As such, and in part because Mr. Juravin would like those projects completed and the motions argued that were to be heard on 24 February 2021 without duplicate cost or effort, Attorney Strzalkowski should not be permitted to withdraw at this point.
With respect to Attorney Robinson, however, Mr. Juravin does not object to her withdrawal.
In her efforts to persuade the Court to grant the Motion to Withdraw, Attorney Robinson began with a barrage of vague accusations against Mr. Juravin. When pressed to be specific, she resorted to making false and misleading accusations to which Mr. Juravin could not adequately respond and/or offer proof to refute on the spur of the moment during his unanticipated telephonic appearance at the hearing.
Attorney Robinson, falsely stated that Mr. Juravin had disclosed Attorney Ralph Strzalkowski’s home address on Yelp, and she claimed (and Attorney Strzalkowski oddly followed her lead and confirmed), that he was alone at home and endangered by Mr. Juravin’s actions.
In truth, however, a cursory internet search reveals that Attorney Strzalkowski is and has been using his home address as his public address for at least the following: his Member Profile on the Florida Bar website, his business listings on Yelp, Google, Lawyers.com, the Florida Disability Access and Awareness website and the Lawyers on Wheels website, and it is his address as Attorney of Record in filings made with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Stating that Mr. Juravin disclosed Attorney Ralph Strzalkowski’s home address and thereby endangered him is a patent falsehood put forth by an officer of the Court.
Further, it is unconscionable that Attorney Robinson would stoop to using Attorney Ralph Strzalkowski’s disability to advance her desire to withdraw from this matter and to further damage Mr. Juravin in the eyes of the Court in this litigation along the way.
Attorney Amber Robinson claimed, without any supporting evidence, that Mr. Juravin had used aliases and placed negative reviews about her online, basing her conclusion on such things as the broken English used and Mr. Juravin’s propensity for posting online reviews.
Attorney Amber Robinson also falsely claimed at hearing that Mr. Juravin had posted negative reviews about another attorney (with whom Mr. Juravin has actually had a long-standing, ongoing and positive relationship), in an effort to bolster her own false and support her Motion to Withdraw.
While Mr. Juravin freely and frequently exercises his First Amendment Right to express his opinions and relate his experiences and believes that it is his civic duty to do so, it is ridiculous to think that he would post negative reviews of his attorney during the course of the representation!
Mr. Juravin had repeatedly affirmed and assured Attorney Amber Robinson that he had never posted negative online reviews about her or Attorney Strzalkowski (or the other attorney) during the course of the representation.
Upon information and belief, Attorney Robinson persisted with her fallacious assertions because she had confirmed with the Bar Association that such negative reviews warranted mandatory withdrawal—her ultimate goal, as she had been paid in advance for hours and projects promised and never completed in a case that seemed to be getting away from her.
Attorney Robinson’s untruths should not be allowed to stand unchallenged on the record, and they should certainly not be the basis for permitting Counsel to withdraw.
However, by email dated 8 March 2021 Attorney Ralph Strzalkowski informed Mr. Juravin that the Court had, in fact, allowed Counsel to withdraw.
This Motion seeks to right some of the wrong that occurred during and as a result of the 24 February 2021 hearing.
After Attorney Robinson’s conduct that day, Mr. Juravin does not oppose her withdrawal but would like Attorney Strzalkowski to continue to represent him going forward.
Particularly at this time in the case, it would be very costly for another attorney to become as familiar as Attorney Strzalkowski with this matter and all related matters; as such, it is unduly burdensome to Mr. Juravin to permit Attorney Strzalkowski’s withdrawal.
Further, Mr. Juravin agrees with Attorney Ralph Strzalkowski’s trial strategy, appreciates his counsel and advice and believes they have a good attorney-client relationship.