Carlo Croce, the embattled and litigious cancer researcher at The Ohio State University, may be on the market for a new attorney.
Croce, who unsuccessfully sued the New York Times for libel after the newspaper reported on misconduct allegations against him, has been waging a second legal front against his institution. The grounds: Croce wants Ohio State to restore him to his position as chair of the Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics — a demand OSU has so far rejected.
Court documents suggest that the case has proceeded to depositions. But we’ve learned that Croce’s attorneys in the academic matter have dropped him as a client. In a motion approved earlier this month, the lawyers, from the Columbus firm James E. Arnold & Associates, petitioned to be removed from the case.
The reasons for the motion, which Judge Karen Held Phipps of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, approved, aren’t specified. The motion refers simply to Ohio Prof. Cond. 1.16(a)(5) and (6), and says Arnold would be willing to talk to the judge privately about why he’s dropping Croce. But here’s what that clause of the code says:
the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation, financial or otherwise, to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled
Arnold (the man, not the firm) did not respond to our request for comment about the motion.
We emailed Croce — who has had at least nine papers retracted, and 17 corrected — to find out if he plans to hire a new legal team to carry on with his suit against his employer.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
I would not put too much stock into this sort of action by attorneys. If you were to set up a blog to watch misbehavior in the legal field, my guess (experience, actually), is that it would dwarf what you see from scientists. Carlo Croce might be innocent on this point. Or it could just be that a difference in views arose in how assertively litigation was to be conducted, or even that a financial limitation arose. I would have recommended that you ask Croce, not just the attorney, to comment on the basis for the split.
Thanks for the suggestion, but as the post notes, we asked Croce for comment. He has yet to respond.
Open and closed, that is the question … Thanks for clarifying!