The New York firm says Combs has paid nothing in more than six months and has not been available for direct communication in over four months. It also asks the court to pause deadlines for 30 days so he can find new lawyers.
The law firm Sher Tremonte LLP has asked a federal court in New Jersey for permission to stop representing Sean Combs in a civil lawsuit brought by Liza Gardner, telling the court that Combs has paid the firm nothing in more than six months and that communication between the client and his lawyers has broken down.
The request is laid out in a sworn declaration by Sher Tremonte partner Michael Tremonte, filed Sept. 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Gardner v. Combs, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07729. The declaration was filed as Document 120-1 in support of the firm’s motion to withdraw. It reflects the firm’s position only and does not indicate any ruling on the motion.
Tremonte, who is admitted to practice in New York and appears in the case pro hac vice, said the firm is seeking to have every Sher Tremonte lawyer who has appeared in the action relieved as Combs’ counsel under Local Civil Rule 102.1. The declaration identifies those lawyers as Tremonte and his colleagues Yonatan Y. Jacobs, Erica Wolff and Katie Renzler.
The firm is also asking the court to pause all pending deadlines for 30 days, including fact-discovery deadlines set in a June 9, 2026, scheduling order, so that Combs has time to hire new lawyers.
Grounds for withdrawal
The declaration relies on three provisions of Rule 1.16(c) of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, which identify circumstances permitting withdrawal. Because Sher Tremonte has appeared for Combs in the federal action, the firm is seeking the court’s permission to withdraw under Local Civil Rule 102.1.
On fees, the declaration states that Combs has not paid the firm anything in more than six months and that his most recent payment covered fees and expenses incurred in late 2025. As a result, according to the filing, a substantial share of the overdue balance is made up of invoices more than 90 days past due. The declaration does not disclose the amount owed. Pointing to the volume of work “across this and numerous other cases,” Tremonte wrote that continuing to represent Combs would place an unreasonable financial burden on the firm.
On communication, the declaration asserts that there has been “a total breakdown” in cooperation between Combs and the firm, and that Combs has not made himself available for timely, substantive and direct communication about his cases for more than four months. According to the filing, that lack of cooperation has left the firm unable to keep providing effective legal services.
On both points, the firm offered to give the court additional details for in camera review, meaning privately to the judge rather than on the public docket.
No prejudice claimed
The firm argues that Combs would not be harmed by its departure because the parties are in the early stages of discovery, no trial has been scheduled and no hearings would be delayed.
To support its request, the declaration cites three earlier District of New Jersey decisions that granted motions to withdraw: Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Yip (2021), where a client had not paid despite warnings; Dawson v. FedEx Freight, Inc. (2025), involving a breakdown in communication between client and counsel; and Open MRI and Imaging of RP Vestibular Diagnostics, P.A. v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc. (2023), where no trial date had been set and no final pretrial order entered.
Notice to Combs
According to the declaration, the firm told Combs on multiple occasions — by mail to Combs and by email to the person holding his power of attorney — that it would seek to withdraw unless its fees were paid and he made himself available to discuss the case. The filing identifies two such notices, sent Sept. 3 and Sept. 11, 2026. Tremonte stated that Combs will be given a copy of the motion papers as filed.
The firm said no memorandum of law is required because the motion seeks leave to withdraw under Local Civil Rule 102.1 and presents no novel legal issue, citing Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(4).
What the filing does not say
The declaration does not describe the substance of Gardner’s claims against Combs or the other defendants, and it does not say whether Combs has retained or is seeking replacement counsel or whether he intends to oppose the motion. In its opening paragraph, the declaration refers to Combs as the “Plaintiff”; the case caption lists Gardner as the plaintiff and Combs as a defendant.
Whether the firm is permitted to withdraw, and whether the requested 30-day stay is granted, is up to the court.
Read the filing: Gardner v. Combs, No. 2:24-cv-07729 — Declaration of Michael Tremonte in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2026)
By The Trial Attorneys Editorial Staff
The information contained in this publication is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such.
