Leida Margaretha’s lawyer quits, says Leida persists in ‘criminal or fraudulent’ course of action EXCLUSIVE
A Shattered Defense: Leida Margaretha’s Lawyer Seeks to Abandon Her Cases as Legal Troubles Mount
The legal walls are closing in on former 90 Day Fiancé star Leida Margaretha. Already facing a staggering array of more than two dozen felony charges for allegedly stealing money from companies she once worked for, the 37-year-old reality TV alumnus has hit a devastating new roadblock. In a dramatic turn of events, her own defense attorney is desperately trying to walk away from her, citing severe financial and ethical breakdowns.
On Thursday, Leida’s defense attorney, Taylor M. Hart, filed formal motions to withdraw as her counsel of record in three separate criminal cases. This includes her most severe active case, which carries a staggering 24 felony counts.
“I respectfully move this Court for an Order removing me as Mr. Margaretha’s attorney of record and allowing me to withdraw from representing her in the above-cited cases,” Mr. Hart wrote in his motion, laying bare a deeply fractured professional relationship.
“Irreparable Breakdown” and Unpaid Bills
The details revealed in Mr. Hart’s motion paint a picture of a defense in absolute chaos. According to the court documents, the relationship between Leida and her legal representation has deteriorated past the point of no return. Mr. Hart cited several alarming grounds for his immediate withdrawal:
- Ms. Margaretha has failed to substantially fulfill her financial obligations for my firm’s representation of her in 25CF14, thus granting me a basis to move to withdraw under SCR 20:1.16(b)(5).
- Beyond that, there have been recent events that have created an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship such that I no longer feel I can ethically or competently represent Ms. Margaretha further. Without breaking attorney-client privilege, I also believe that there is now a conflict of interest between myself, my firm, and Ms. Margaretha.
- I also believe I have separate personal bases to move to withdraw from representing Ms. Margaretha under SCR 20:1.16(b)(2), 20:1.16(b)(4), 20:1.16(b)(6), and 20:1.16(b)(7).
To understand the gravity of these accusations, one must look at the specific Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (SCR) that Mr. Hart cited. These rules outline the extreme circumstances under which a lawyer is permitted to abandon a client mid-case:
SCR 20:1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION
(b) Except as stated in par. (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(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.
An Ultimatum Delivered
Alongside the formal motions, Mr. Hart entered a direct, written warning to Leida into the public court record, giving her a strict deadline to respond to his departure.
Dear Leida,
I write to follow up on our previous correspondence pursuant to Adams County Local Rule 3.03c to provide you with a copy of my Motion to Withdraw filed in each case. Please find a copy of that motion enclosed with this letter.
Pursuant to that same Local Rule, you have 11 days to file any objection to my withdrawal in writing to the Court. If an objection is timely filed, the Court will schedule your cases for a hearing to address my motion in court. If you do not object, you do not [have] to file anything or otherwise do anything or take any action.
Very truly yours,
Attorney Taylor M. Hart
State Bar No. 1097610
As it stands, the court has already officially granted Mr. Hart’s motion to withdraw in one of Leida’s criminal cases. Rulings on the other two pending cases are still expected to follow.
This escalating white-collar criminal saga comes amidst a backdrop of even deeper tragedy and controversy for the former reality star. In a separate, deeply distressing matter, the Medical Examiner’s Office recently ruled the death of Leida Margaretha’s baby as non-accidental, casting an even darker shadow over her ongoing public and legal battles.