Defenses Raised

397 defensive theories across all filings

Data license: Public court records

397 rows

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

defense_id ▼ filing_id defense
1 2 2 Statute of limitations
2 2 2 Justification
3 2 2 Estoppel
4 2 2 Waiver
5 2 2 Ratification
6 2 2 Release
7 2 2 Unclean hands
8 2 2 Contribution
9 2 2 Failure to mitigate damages
10 2 2 Lack of standing
11 2 2 Accord and satisfaction
12 2 2 Assumption of the risk
13 2 2 Illegality/Criminal acts
14 2 2 First Amendment
15 2 2 Attorney immunity
16 2 2 In pari delicto
17 2 2 Specific denial that all conditions precedent for conversion and trade secret claims were performed or occurred prior to filing suit
18 3 3 Agreement with PR Consultants was for hourly-rate services with a percentage-of-fees cap, not a barratry fee-sharing arrangement
19 3 3 PR Consultants' own claims in Federal Court Lawsuit confirmed hourly-rate basis and denied percentage entitlement
20 3 3 PR Consultants had their own Mississippi attorneys who reviewed and approved all contracts
21 3 3 PR Consultants were solely responsible for hiring, training, supervising, and controlling all staff
22 3 3 PR Consultants made representations about compliance with applicable marketing rules
23 3 3 Pohl did not instruct anyone to improperly solicit clients
24 3 3 Pohl denies engaging in any conspiracy to commit barratry
25 3 3 The term 'barratry fees' was concocted after PR Consultants were caught stealing
26 3 3 Some contacts with potential clients may have been made by unauthorized individuals (Porter, Chaney) using Pohl's name without authorization
27 3 3 Fee arrangement with Williamson was a legitimate 60/40 split consistent with Texas law
28 3 3 Pohl denies violating all cited Texas Disciplinary Rules (1.04, 1.15, 5.04, 7.01, 7.03, 7.06, 8.04)
29 3 3 PR Consultants were primarily supposed to run information booths at public events and answer follow-up calls
30 4 4 Special Appearance — lack of personal jurisdiction (previously filed)
31 4 4 Lack of standing / no duty owed (no attorney-client relationship, not party to underlying litigation or settlement)
32 4 4 Attorney immunity for referral of cases as traditional legal services
33 4 4 Failure to state a claim for conspiracy — underlying tort liability foreclosed as matter of law (Frankoff v. Norman, 448 S.W.3d 75, 87)
34 4 4 Comparative responsibility / contributory negligence under Chapter 33
35 4 4 Excuse, legal justification, and good faith
36 4 4 No legally cognizable damages / failure to mitigate damages
37 4 4 Failure to satisfy conditions precedent
38 4 4 Estoppel
39 4 4 Waiver
40 4 4 Unclean hands
41 4 4 Illegality
42 4 4 Statute of limitations
43 4 4 Chapter 41 limitations on exemplary damages
44 7 7 TCPA dismissal — lawsuit based on, relates to, or is in response to exercise of right of free speech
45 7 7 TCPA dismissal — lawsuit based on, relates to, or is in response to exercise of right to petition
46 7 7 TCPA dismissal — lawsuit based on, relates to, or is in response to exercise of right of association
47 7 7 Attorney immunity — all conduct within scope of client representation (Cantey Hanger, Highland Capital)
48 7 7 Statute of limitations — Pohl knew of claims in 2014, filed in August 2018 beyond 2-year and 3-year periods
49 7 7 Res judicata — same claims settled with prejudice in Mississippi federal litigation on April 21, 2017
50 7 7 Pohl lacks ownership of allegedly converted property (Precision Marketing owned it per Favre)
51 7 7 Client lists are not trade secrets under TUTSA — publicly known information
52 7 7 Kassab did not know or have reason to know information was acquired by improper means
53 8 8 Statute of limitations
54 8 8 Justification
55 8 8 Estoppel
56 8 8 Waiver
57 8 8 Ratification
58 8 8 Release
59 8 8 Unclean hands
60 8 8 Contribution
61 8 8 Failure to mitigate damages
62 8 8 Lack of standing
63 8 8 Accord and satisfaction
64 8 8 Assumption of the risk
65 8 8 Illegality/Criminal acts
66 8 8 First Amendment
67 8 8 Attorney immunity
68 8 8 In pari delicto
69 8 8 Res judicata
70 8 8 Specific denial of conditions precedent for conversion and trade secret claims
71 10 10 Shepherd affidavit is defective — not based on personal knowledge, no perjury attachment, merely a statement by interested counsel
72 10 10 Shepherd affidavit fails to establish business records foundation — not shown as custodian, all six elements unmet
73 10 10 All Shepherd exhibits are inadmissible hearsay upon hearsay
74 10 10 Shepherd failed to provide requisite notice of filing under Rule 902(10)
75 10 10 Pohl's declaration paragraphs 3-9 are conclusory and constitute no evidence as a matter of law
76 10 10 Documents came from Precision Marketing Group, not Pohl — Precision owned the documents
77 10 10 Client files belong to clients under Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.15(d) — Pohl never owned the subject documents
78 10 10 Pohl lacks standing for conversion or trade secret claims
79 10 10 Commercial speech exception does not apply — Pohl failed to prove all four Castleman elements; party asserting exemption bears burden
80 11 11 Statute of limitations
81 11 11 Justification
82 11 11 Estoppel
83 11 11 Waiver
84 11 11 Ratification
85 11 11 Release
86 11 11 Unclean hands
87 11 11 Contribution
88 11 11 Failure to mitigate damages
89 11 11 Lack of standing
90 11 11 Accord and satisfaction
91 11 11 Assumption of the risk
92 11 11 Illegality/Criminal acts
93 11 11 First Amendment
94 11 11 Attorney immunity
95 11 11 In pari delicto
96 11 11 Res judicata
97 11 11 Specific denial of conditions precedent
98 11 11 Designation of responsible third parties (Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner)
99 12 12 Statute of limitations
100 12 12 Justification

Next page

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE defenses_raised (
    defense_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    defense TEXT
);