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