The Medical Protective Company v. Nasra Elmi; Robert Blanton; Aesthetic Rejuvenation Spa, PLLC; and Kristine Brecht, M.D.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 1, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00212
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE Case No. 2:24-cv-00212-RAJ 11 COMPANY, ORDER 12 Plaintiff,

13 v.

14 NASRA ELMI; ROBERT BLANTON; AESTHETIC REJUVENATION SPA, 15 PLLC; AND KRISTINE BRECHT, M.D., 16 Defendants. 17 18 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Jeffery Myra Wheat of Wheat Legal 19 PLLC’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants Kristine Brecht, M.D. 20 and Aesthetic Rejuvenation Spa PLLC (the “Motion,” Dkt. # 47). No party has filed any 21 response or opposition to the Motion. The Motion provides that Wheat Legal PLLC’s 22 continued representation of Kristine Brecht, M.D. (“Dr. Brecht”) and Aesthetic 23 Rejuvenation Spa PLLC (“Aesthetic Rejuvenation”) is “ethically impermissible due to a 24 non-waivable conflict of interest arising from a recently filed adversary proceeding in the 25 26 1 related bankruptcy case that names counsel personally as a defendant.” Dkt. # 47 at 1– 2 2. 3 Courts consider several factors in evaluating a motion to withdraw, including: “(1) 4 the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other 5 litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) 6 the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” Curtis v. 7 Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-0991-JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 8 12, 2014). As relevant to this Motion, a January 30, 2026 adversary complaint filed by 9 the Chapter 7 Trustee in Dr. Brecht’s bankruptcy proceedings names Mr. Wheat as an 10 individual defendant and “asserts claims for professional negligence, fraudulent transfer, 11 conversion, and liability as a subsequent transferee under 11 U.S.C. § 550.” Dkt. # 47 at 12 2. Counsel represents that these claims “all aris[e] directly from counsel’s conduct in 13 representing Dr. Brecht in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings,” which are “closely 14 related” to this action. Id. Accordingly, counsel submits that a non-waivable conflict 15 has arisen due to counsel’s “direct personal and financial interest in defending himself 16 and Wheat Legal PLLC against the Trustee’s allegations,” which is “materially adverse 17 to Dr. Brecht’s interests, as any defense counsel advances to the negligence claim will 18 necessarily involve asserting that the legal advice he provided was correct and that his 19 strategic decisions were sound.” Id. at 3. 20 The Court concludes that counsel’s representations articulate valid bases for 21 withdrawal. See Wash. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. (RPC) 1.16(a), cmt. 3 (“[A] lawyer’s 22 statement [to the court] that professional considerations require termination of the 23 representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient” justification for withdrawal). 24 Additionally, due to the emergence of an actual conflict between counsel and his client 25 in a closely-related proceeding, the conflict is non-waivable. See RPC 1.7(b)(3) 26 1 (prohibiting continued representation of representation of opposing parties in the same 2 litigation, regardless of the clients’ consent); In re Marriage of Wixom & Wixom, 182 3 Wash. App. 881, 902, 332 P.3d 1063, 1074 (2014) (where an attorney represented himself 4 and his client, and an actual conflict arose between the attorney and client with respect 5 to the allocation of sanctions, the conflict was not waivable by client). 6 As required by the local rules, counsel has certified service of the Motion and the 7 supporting declarations to his clients and opposing counsel. Dkt. # 47 at 5; see Local 8 Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 83.2(b)(1). Counsel has also provided the Court with his clients’ 9 addresses and telephone number. Dkt. # 47-1 at 2; see LCR 83.2(b)(1). The Court 10 therefore GRANTS counsel’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants 11 Kristine Brecht, M.D. and Aesthetic Rejuvenation Spa PLLC. Dkt. # 47. 12 Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter. Dkt. # 48. While 13 the Motion for Summary Judgment appears to be unopposed, and was noted for March 14 17, 2026, the Court acknowledges that the absence of opposition from Dr. Brecht and 15 Aesthetic Rejuvenation may have resulted from the non-waivable conflict identified by 16 counsel in this Motion—particularly given that, unless it is a sole proprietorship, 17 Aesthetic Rejuvenation must be cannot proceed in this action on a pro se basis. See 18 Local Rule 83.2(b). 19 Although the Court encourages Dr. Brecht to seek new counsel as well, the Court 20 advises Dr. Brecht that she remains responsible for defending the claims against her in 21 this action, including meeting Court deadlines and complying with the Court’s local 22 rules. Dr. Brecht will find resources for pro se parties, including the Court’s local rules, 23 at the Court’s website, www.wawd.uscourts.gov. 24 // 25 // 26 1 On the basis of the foregoing, the Court extends the deadlines in this matter as 2 follows: 3 (1) Defendants Kristine Brecht, M.D. and Aesthetic Rejuvenation Spa PLLC shall 4 have thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order to retain new counsel. New 5 counsel shall enter an appearance no later than May 1, 2026. 6 (2) Any response by Defendants Kristine Brecht, M.D. and/or Aesthetic 7 Rejuvenation Spa PLLC to Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment, 8 Dkt. # 48, shall be due within thirty (30) days of the entry of appearance by 9 new counsel. 10 The Clerk shall update the docket to include the following address for Dr. Brecht 11 and shall ensure that this Order is mailed to the address below. It is Dr. Brecht’s 12 obligation to update the Court with any change in address. 13 Dr. Kristine Brecht 9654 California Ave SW 14 Seattle, WA 98136 15 Telephone: (774) 239-1396 Email: tinabrechtmd@hotmail.com 16

17 DATED this 1st day of April, 2026. 18 A

19 20 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 21 United States District Judge

24 25 26