Lawyers seeking divorce from cat filter lawyer are asking for a divorce in California

Lawyers seeking to divorce from a cat filter attorney in California are asking the court to consider a special divorce clause in their contracts, which allows the cat filter to terminate the lawyer’s contract and take the lawyer out of the picture entirely.

Lawyers who file the request to dismiss the case, which was filed on Friday in Sacramento, have asked for the court’s consideration of the clause in the contract.

They say the clause would allow the lawyer to sever his or her relationship with the cat, and allow the cat to sever the relationship with him or her.

In an email to the Los Angeles Times, attorney John Baez said his client, Lisa Fagan, “is not a dog person.”

He said the clause “has been requested by the plaintiffs to allow the plaintiff to terminate her employment with the client and for her to take away her right to representation by counsel and a fair and impartial trial.”

He said he believes the clause is unconstitutional.

“As a matter of law, this is clearly a tortious action for which the plaintiff can recover a declaratory judgment in an amount of up to $25,000,” Baez wrote.

He added that he believed that the clause could be challenged in court.

“I also think that the language is unconstitutional because it does not require the plaintiff’s attorney to perform work for the client,” he said.

Baez said Fagan is a “foolish, incompetent and abusive” lawyer who is “a dangerous and dangerous threat to the public” and who is trying to “destroy the life and reputation of a law firm with her bad advice.”

Baez has also filed a motion to dismiss, saying that the plaintiffs “have not provided a compelling argument” to the court that Fagan has a right to terminate their relationship with her.

He has also asked the court for a declaration that Faggons “excessive and unjustified” demands for the termination of their relationship and “an irreparable and punitive damages award for all the damage caused by the wrongful termination.”

Fagan’s lawyer, James Brown, said in a statement that the filing of the motion to strike is “the first step in a long process to resolve this matter.”

“We are committed to working with the court and the parties to determine what is in the best interests of this client,” Brown said.

“We are confident that our client will prevail in this appeal and the other cases filed by her.

We are confident in our ability to defend our client in a court of law.”

In a news release, Fagan’s attorney, Matthew Cramer, said the motion is “simply a ploy by the plaintiff and her allies to use this court as a political weapon to discredit and discredit her and her law firm.”

“They will use the court as the vehicle for a political agenda in this case and are willing to use any means necessary to achieve that end,” he wrote.

Cramer said the filing also shows that Fagans lawyers are “actively trying to smear the reputation of law firms and the legal profession” by pushing the cat issue.

“They have done nothing but destroy the reputation and reputation that our profession has earned,” he added.

Fagan, who is black, sued Fagan and Brown last year.

The suit alleged Fagan made threatening phone calls to other lawyers, threatened to fire lawyers who were involved in her case, and used “expertise” to influence other attorneys.