Harrell’s attorney seeking to withdraw




The attorney for a former Pulaski County High School cheerleading coach slated to go on trial for embezzlement Friday wants to withdraw from the case.

James C. Turk Jr., attorney for Angelia Paige Harrell, filed the motion in Pulaski County Circuit Court Nov. 26. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Friday, in place of the jury trial.

In the motion, Turk is asking to withdraw “on the grounds that the attorney/client relationship has broken down.” He goes on to say that he “feels there is no way to repair that relationship, and … he cannot be impartial towards his representation of the defendant.”

Harrell was indicted in September 2012 on three counts of using her position as a public official to embezzle funds from the cheerleading program for her personal use. The incidents are alleged to have occurred between March 2010 and October 2011, while Harrell was head coach of the varsity cheerleading squad and a guidance counselor at PCHS.

The trial already has been continued four times, with some requested by Turk and others being joint requests by Turk and special prosecutor Erin DeHart, commonwealth’s attorney for Bland County. No reason for the other continuances is stated in the court file.




4 Responses to Harrell’s attorney seeking to withdraw

  1. Lola

    December 3, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might believe this is yet another attempt to delay justice.

  2. Anon

    December 4, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Client-Lawyer Relationship
    Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

    (a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

    (1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law;

    (2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client; or

    (3) the lawyer is discharged.

    (b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

    (1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;

    (2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;

    (3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;

    (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.

    (c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.

    (d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.


    • Anonymous

      December 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm

      Hey Anon, Thanks for sharing! Insightful and makes us curious!

  3. Seriously?

    December 4, 2013 at 10:19 am

    “attorney/client relationship has broken down?” “no way to repair that relationship?…cannot be impartial?” sounds to me like either she has just quit communicating with her lawyer or that he knows that she is guilty as he11 and he can not defend her. If she is not communicating with her lawyer, than just use all the evidence that has been compiled in the last 15 months in this case, along with that and numerous parents who have knowledge of this could bring this case to a close. Gosh, I am so tired of seeing her name in the paper. It should not be in there until she is finally convicted. (yeah, I know that this will never happen.) This is just another attempt to make this all go away.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login