The mere fact that a counsel has been engaged elsewhere does not compel a party’s continuance. 667 S.W.2d 474 (Mo.App.1984). Commerce Bank of Mexico, N.A. v. Davidson, In this case, the scheduling conflict is, at best, tenuous. The conflicting trial defendant’s Motion for Continuance references a case as being set in Greene County. That case is a one day bench trial, listed number five, as back up to four The jury trials (the “bench trial”). opposing lawyer for the bench trial has informed counsel, by letter, that it is extremely Adam’s unlikely the bench trial will proceed as scheduled, even assuming the four jury trials ahead of it, resolve. In any event, even if the bench trial was to materialize into more than a potential conflict, case was set seven months before it and should take priority. If still Adam’s BEN’S felt compelled to stay with the firm of Brown and James, despite attorney bench trial, James’ rather than hiring any one of the other multiple defense firms in Southwest Missouri, BEN’S could use one of the hundred other lawyers listed on Brown and website. The schedule James’ conflict is not sufficient to warrant a continuance of this important case. Conclusion The Motion for Continuance amounts to nothing more than request for this defendants’ Court to bail them out of an awkward situation that they, themselves, have created. Under these circumstances Adam should be permitted to keep his trial setting. THE ODOM LAW FIRM, P.C.
The mere fact that a party’s counsel has been engaged elsewhere does not compel a continuance. Commerce Bank of Mexico, N.A. v. Davidson, 667 S.W.2d 474 (Mo.App.1984). In this case, the scheduling conflict is, at best, tenuous. The conflicting trial defendant’s Motion for Continuance references a case as being set in Greene County. That case is a one day bench trial, listed number five, as back up to four jury trials (the “bench trial”). The opposing lawyer for the bench trial has informed Adam’s counsel, by letter, that it is extremely unlikely the bench trial will proceed as scheduled, even assuming the four jury trials ahead of it, resolve. In any event, even if the bench trial was to materialize into more than a potential conflict, Adam’s case was set seven months before it and should take priority. If BEN’S still felt compelled to stay with the firm of Brown and James, despite attorney James’ bench trial, rather than hiring any one of the other multiple defense firms in Southwest Missouri, BEN’S could use one of the hundred other lawyers listed on Brown and James’ website. The schedule conflict is not sufficient to warrant a continuance of this important case. Conclusion The Motion for Continuance amounts to nothing more than defendants’ request for this Court to bail them out of an awkward situation that they, themselves, have created. Under these circumstances Adam should be permitted to keep his trial setting. THE ODOM LAW FIRM, P.C.
w03p1case_LastnameFirstname.docx