Substitution of Counsel
Filed 2026-01-08 · By Stanton Law LLC (incoming) and Ramsingh Legal (outgoing), with client consent from DuBose Porter · Document type Substitution of Counsel View the PDF →
Legal shorthand in this page: USCR = Uniform Superior Court Rules (Georgia’s procedural rulebook for Superior Court). MM = Macon Melody (the newspaper plaintiff — NOT an attorney). MSJ = Motion for Summary Judgment (asking the judge to rule without a trial). MPSJ = Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (same, for part of the case). LLC = Limited Liability Company. d/b/a = “doing business as.”
What is this document?
This is the formal hand-off document that closes the loop on the January 7, 2026 Stanton Law Notice of Appearance. Filed on January 8, 2026, it does two things at once:
- It substitutes Stanton Law LLC in as plaintiff’s counsel of record, and
- It withdraws Joy Ramsingh of Ramsingh Legal as plaintiff’s counsel.
The filing is made under Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.3(3) (USCR — the Uniform Superior Court Rules, the statewide procedural rulebook for Georgia Superior Court cases), the Georgia rule that governs how a lawyer trades places with another lawyer during an active case. Attached as an exhibit is a separately-signed client consent — wet-ink signed by DuBose Porter, the principal of the plaintiff entity — confirming that the swap has the client’s blessing.
After this filing, Joy Ramsingh is off the case, and Lucas W. Andrews and Erika Pitzel of Stanton Law are plaintiff’s only lawyers of record.
At a glance
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Filed | January 8, 2026 |
| Filed by | Incoming: Stanton Law LLC (Andrews + Pitzel). Outgoing: Ramsingh Legal (Joy Ramsingh). Client consent: DuBose Porter |
| Document type | Substitution of Counsel under USCR 4.3(3) |
| Filed for | Plaintiff — Georgia Trust for Local News LLC d/b/a (doing business as) The Macon Melody |
Deep dive — legal concepts, explained
USCR 4.3(3) substitution procedure
Georgia’s Uniform Superior Court Rules (USCRs) are the statewide procedural rules that govern how superior court cases are handled. Rule 4.3 deals with attorney withdrawal and substitution.
Under USCR 4.3(3), when a lawyer is leaving a case and a replacement lawyer is stepping in at the same time, a streamlined “substitution” option is available. The mechanics are:
- Both lawyers sign a substitution document — the outgoing lawyer consenting to withdraw, the incoming lawyer confirming they will take the case.
- The client consents, usually on a separate signature page or exhibit.
- The filing is served on opposing counsel.
- No court order is required in the routine case, because the transition is seamless — the client is never without counsel, no deadline is at risk, and the opposing side cannot credibly object.
This is different from a unilateral withdrawal (USCR 4.3(2)), in which an attorney tries to leave a case without a replacement standing by. That path requires a motion, a court hearing, and judicial permission, because courts are protective of parties who might suddenly find themselves without representation.
Because this filing is a clean 4.3(3) substitution — new lawyers already in place, client consent attached — it typically takes effect immediately upon filing and does not require the judge to do anything.
Who is DuBose Porter?
The exhibit attached to this substitution bears the wet-ink signature of DuBose Porter, signing on behalf of the plaintiff LLC as the client giving consent. That signature line is more significant than it looks for readers trying to understand who is actually pressing this lawsuit.
DuBose Porter is a long-time figure in Georgia public life. He served multiple terms in the Georgia House of Representatives, including a stint as House Minority Leader. He has also spent decades as a community newspaper publisher in middle Georgia. In other words, he is simultaneously a politician familiar with how public institutions respond to pressure, and a newspaperman with a personal stake in open-records fights.
His appearance as the signatory on the client-consent exhibit effectively confirms what had until now been an inference: Porter is the principal behind the Georgia Trust for Local News LLC, the entity that owns the Macon Melody brand and is the named plaintiff in this lawsuit. That context matters for readers evaluating the case. A records suit brought by a for-profit newspaper chain reads differently than one brought by a nonprofit civic-journalism project, which reads differently again from one brought by a veteran publisher and former legislator personally committed to newspapers. This filing clarifies which category applies.
What withdrawal does and doesn’t say
A change of counsel is not, in itself, evidence of anything going wrong. Some things this filing does not say:
- It does not say Ramsingh was fired, quit, or had any dispute with the client.
- It does not say there was any misconduct, disagreement on strategy, or loss of confidence.
- It does not reflect on the merits of the case.
What it does say: the client, Porter, consented in writing; the outgoing and incoming firms coordinated and signed a joint document; and the transition was handled under the streamlined 4.3(3) pathway rather than an adversarial withdrawal motion. That is the procedural signature of an amicable hand-off — exactly what you would expect when a solo practitioner and a larger firm agree that the larger firm is better positioned to carry the case through summary judgment and, if needed, appeal.
Strategic timing before the MSJ
The most meaningful thing about this substitution is when it happens. The date on the document is January 8, 2026. About two months later, on March 10, 2026, plaintiff files a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (sometimes abbreviated MSJ — Motion for Summary Judgment — or MPSJ — Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) — a substantial brief asking the judge to rule, without a trial, on part of the case.
A Motion for Summary Judgment is one of the most important filings in any civil lawsuit. It is typically the longest and most heavily-researched brief either side will file, and the ruling on it frequently determines whether the case settles, tries, or heads straight to the Georgia Court of Appeals (whose published decisions appear in the “Ga. App.” reporter — a citation like “300 Ga. App. 123 (2009)” reads as volume 300, page 123, decided 2009). Drafting an MSJ is intense work.
By swapping in the new team two months before the MSJ is filed, the plaintiff ensures that Stanton’s lawyers own the MSJ from the first word. They are not cleaning up an inherited draft; they are setting the frame themselves. That is a deliberate, unhurried sequence — consistent with an organized, well-advised client preparing for an important motion — not a last-minute fire drill.
Why this matters
Read as a pair, the January 7 Notice of Appearance and this January 8 Substitution are the moment the plaintiff’s side completes a counsel upgrade in advance of the case’s biggest motion. They also, almost in passing, confirm DuBose Porter as the real party in interest behind the Macon Melody — relevant context for a reader trying to understand who is suing Bibb County Schools and why.
Read the original
Part of Court Filings · Case No. 2025-CV-083495 · Bibb County Superior Court