Your Honour,
ATP acknowledges that the representation offered by its lawyer has not been up to the standard expected by the Court. However the firm contends that the failure in representation was not a result of bad faith or malicious intent but rather the direct consequence of the unprofessional dereliction of duty by the specific attorney assigned to the case, whose inactivity left the clients without active council and a collapse in the firm's internal structure.
When Stratton LLC and Emmet99 sought ATP for representation, the firm assigned attorney MJ43 to serve as their dedicated counsel. This assignment was intended to create a clear line of representation, separate from the firm's partners who were also named as defendants in this matter.
Regrettably, MJ43 became inactive and uncommunicative for an extended period of time for unknown reasons. This abandonment of his duties occurred without notice to the Firm or its clients. It was this individual dereliction that directly caused the failure of representation at critical stages.
Furthermore MJ43 was the only competent lawyer at the firm willing to take cases from Alexandria, leaving no one else in his absence that could handle things.
The Crown and other parties have pointed to the actions of Talion77, a founder of ATP and defendant in this case as evidence of a conflict of interest, this is a mischaracterization of their roles in this case. While he was a Deputy Managing Partner of ATP, he was also named as a co-defendant in this case. Accordingly, he retained ATP as a client to handle his own defence. His participation in this case, including communications with the Crown and his own plea agreement, was undertaken in his personal capacity as a defendant seeking to resolve the charges against him. He was not acting as counsel for Stratton LLC or Emmet99, nor was he supervising their legal strategy; he was, in fact, another client of the same inactive attorney.
There was no concerted effort by ATP to betray its clients. Rather, it was a firm crippled by the assigned lawyer vanishing, and the only individuals with the authority to fix the problem were ethically barred from doing so due to their own status as defendants.
The actions of Talion77 as a defendant cannot be conflated with the duties of the firm. As a defendant facing serious charges, he was entitled to pursue his own legal strategy, including negotiating with the Crown. This does not create a conflict of interest for the firm, because the firm’s duty to represent Stratton LLC and Emmet99 rested with the assigned counsel, MJ43, not with a partner who was also a client. The core issue is that the assigned counsel failed to perform their duties for all their clients in this matter.
The Firm has effectively ceased operations under Alexandrian law, a direct consequence of the fallout from this case. This demonstrates accountability and mitigates the risk of any future harm. To levy sanctions against a defunct entity for the failures of a single, inactive attorney would be unduly punitive.