Kanye West was accused of attempting to drag out a messy legal battle involving his former business partners The Gap — days after his lawyer asked for permission to drop him as a client, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, the company Art City Center raised objections to Kanye’s current lawyer Brian Brumfield’s request to be relieved as counsel for the musician.

As In Touch first reported, earlier this week, Brian asked the court for permission to be removed as Kanye’s lawyer on several cases, including the one brought by Art City.

“Defendant, Kanye West, terminated relationship on 6/21/2024. Defendant also will not speak to counsel and Defendant refuses to pay counsel as well,” Brian told the court.

The judge has yet to sign off on the lawyer’s request.

Art City asked the court to deny the motion if it caused the case any sort of delay. Art City Center sued The Gap in October 2022.

The company leased the retail giant a building on 6th street in Los Angeles. The one-year lease was from April 2021 to March 2022. Gap paid $104,000 a month in rent and another $8,000 in parking fees. Per their lease, The Gap agreed not to modify the property.

Art City Center said The Gap “completed numerous, significant, unapproved modifications” to the property.

The company demanded damages of more than $800,000.

The Gap denied all allegations in the lawsuit. The Gap filed a countersuit against Kanye, 47.

The Gap and Ye entered into a partnership in 2020 where the mogul’s Yeezy line was to be sold in their stores. It all fell apart two years later with Kanye terminating the agreement due to alleged “noncompliance” of terms. In their court response, The Gap accused the rapper and his team of making the changes to the building.

The Gap said they did not approve the work.

“The performance of the work not only breached the Strategic Agreement, but the manner of preparing for and performing the work caused the need for the repairs and restoration alleged in the complaint,” the response read.

The suit claimed that, “by making and not repairing or restoring the foregoing alterations of the Premises that [Kanye] made without Gap’s participation or approval, [Kanye] breached the Strategic Agreement and directly and proximately caused Gap to incur expenses to repair and restore the premises.

The Gap asked that court to award $2 million in damages against Kanye and his company. In the new motion, Art City argued Kanye’s lawyer dropping out, “appears to be just another ploy by Kanye West and his company, Yeezy Supply LLC, to avoid sitting for depositions that are scheduled for next week (on July 9 and 11) and to delay trial.”

The company added, “Cross-Defendants Yeezy Supply LLC and Ye fka Kanye West have been formally involved in these proceeds for a little over a year. During that time, they have employed three different law firms. Mr. Brumfield, the latest of the trio, has only been their attorney of record for 43 days.”

Art City said Kanye’s previous lawyer had agreed to the July deposition date.

The company said, “Now, less than a week before those depositions are to proceed, counsel for Yeezy Supply has stated that his client does not intend to appear at the depositions, and counsel for Gap has stated that it does not intend to appear either because if Yeezy Supply is not in attendance, Gap is concerned that it will have to sit for another re-opened deposition upon the appearance of new counsel for Yeezy Supply. Counsel for Gap is also seeking to further continue the trial as well.”

A lawyer for Art City argued, “If Yeezy Supply LLC and Ye do not appear at the depositions next week, they should be precluded from later claiming they have a right to re-open any deposition that has already commenced or been completed.” He added, “Actions must have consequences. If parties are allowed to unilaterally decide not to appear and not to participate in proceedings, then the system fails.”

The lawyer ended, “Lastly, Plaintiff wants the record to be clear that it does not wish for the November 26, 2024 trial date to be continued further. This ploy of repeatedly switching attorneys to delay trial is an old one. It should not be approved or rewarded here.”

A judge has yet to rule on the matter.