Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
553 rows
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 1 | Summary | Introduces the parties and provides an overview of the claims: Defendants engaged in a scheme to illegally obtain, maintain, and use Pohl's trade secrets and confidential information. Favre and Precision breached a settlement agreement; all Defendants committed conversion and TUTSA violations and engaged in conspiracy. Pohl seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000. |
| 2 | 1 1 | Defendants | Identifies all defendants with their addresses and methods of service. Includes Scott Favre and Scott M. Favre PA, LLC (7044 Stennis Airport Road, Kiln, Mississippi); Precision Marketing Group, LLC (same address); Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (1214 Elgin Street and 5314 Navarro Street, Houston, Texas); Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (4306 Yoakum Blvd., Suite 400, Houston, Texas / 1607 Dove Ridge Drive, Katy, Texas); F. Douglas Montague III and Montague Pittman & Varnado, P.A. (525 Main Street, Hattiesburg, Mississippi). |
| 3 | 1 1 | Jurisdiction/Venue | Asserts jurisdiction based on minimum contacts with Texas including engaging in business, committing torts, and residing in Texas. Favre and Precision contracted with Pohl, a Texas resident, to perform the contract in part in Texas. Venue proper in Harris County under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 15.002 and 15.062. |
| 4 | 1 1 | Background | Pohl is a lawyer who represented persons in motor vehicle accident claims and BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims. Pohl engaged Precision for public relations, evidence gathering, and client liaison services. Precision gained access to confidential information about up to 10,000 or more clients/prospective clients, including identities, contact information, fee agreements, legal forms, proprietary forms, internal emails, and marketing information. Favre, Precision, and Nicholson stole physical copies and computers, misappropriated electronic data. Favre secretly sold the stolen information to Kassab and Montague for $250,000 cash plus substantial bonuses. Kassab and Montague knew the information was stolen. Kassab used it to solicit Pohl's clients to bring barratry and other cases against Pohl. A prior federal lawsuit (No. 1:14-cv-381-KS-JCG, Southern District of Mississippi) was resolved by a Confidential Settlement Agreement in late April/early May 2017. The Settlement Agreement required return of all documents and deletion of all ESI. Nicholson simultaneously served as counsel for Favre/Precision in the settlement and co-counsel with Kassab/Montague in claims against Pohl. |
| 5 | 1 1 | Count One: Breach of Contract (Against Favre And Precision) | Pohl timely and fully performed the Settlement Agreement. Favre and Precision breached by causing claims and legal actions to be filed against Pohl, assisting Kassab and co-counsel in pursuing claims, failing to return required information (including information previously provided to Kassab or Montague), and failing to permanently delete electronically-stored information. |
| 6 | 1 1 | Count Two: Conversion (Against All Defendants) | Favre, Precision, and Nicholson wrongfully assumed and exercised dominion and control over Pohl's property by stealing confidential information. Kassab and Montague wrongfully exercised dominion and control by knowingly purchasing stolen information. All Defendants wrongfully maintained and used the stolen information in contravention of Pohl's ownership rights. |
| 7 | 1 1 | Count Three: Violation of TUTSA (Against All Defendants) | Pohl maintained client information as confidential trade secrets with independent economic value, taking substantial measures to maintain confidentiality. Favre, Precision, and Nicholson willfully and maliciously misappropriated trade secrets through theft (§ 134A.002(2), (3)(A)), disclosed them to Kassab and Montague without consent (§ 134A.002(3)(B)), and all Defendants used them without consent (§ 134A.002(3)(B)). |
| 8 | 1 1 | Count Four: Civil Conspiracy (Against All Defendants) | All Defendants acted in combination with the agreed object of misappropriating Pohl's trade secrets and converting Pohl's property, each committing overt acts toward the unlawful misappropriation that proximately caused damages. |
| 9 | 1 1 | Damages | Seeks actual damages within jurisdictional limits, injunctive relief under TUTSA § 134A.003, exemplary damages under §§ 41.001 et seq. and 134A.004(b), attorney's fees under §§ 38.001 et seq. and 134A.005, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. |
| 10 | 1 1 | Trial by Jury | Pohl requests trial by jury and tenders the appropriate jury fee. |
| 11 | 1 1 | Conclusion | Requests judgment in Pohl's favor against all Defendants on all counts and all other legal and equitable relief. |
| 12 | 2 2 | Rule 47 Statement | Kassab Defendants, as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. |
| 13 | 2 2 | Parties | Identifies all parties: Plaintiff Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado. Plaintiff Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm for the practice of law in various states including Texas. Lists all defendants (Favre, Scott M. Favre PA LLC, Precision, Montague, Montague Pittman & Varnado, Nicholson, Baker Nicholson LLP). Kassab (LCK individually and Kassab P.C.) identified as both Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs. |
| 14 | 2 2 | Jurisdiction and Venue | The matter is within the court's jurisdictional limits. Venue is proper because one or more defendants reside in Harris County and a substantial part of the acts and/or omissions forming the basis of the suit occurred there. |
| 15 | 2 2 | General Denial | Kassab generally denies all allegations by Pohl and requests the court require Pohl to carry his burden of proof on all allegations. |
| 16 | 2 2 | Affirmative Defenses | Kassab pleads 16 affirmative defenses: (1) statute of limitations, (2) justification, (3) estoppel, (4) waiver, (5) ratification, (6) release, (7) unclean hands, (8) contribution, (9) failure to mitigate damages, (10) lack of standing, (11) accord and satisfaction, (12) assumption of the risk, (13) illegality/criminal acts, (14) First Amendment, (15) attorney immunity, and (16) in pari delicto. |
| 17 | 2 2 | Specific Denials | Kassab specifically denies that all conditions precedent regarding Pohl's claims of conversion and theft of trade secrets were performed or occurred prior to Pohl filing suit. |
| 18 | 2 2 | Factual Background and Procedural History | Extensive factual narrative alleging Pohl engaged in systematic barratry. LCK is a plaintiffs' legal malpractice lawyer. Kassab filed four lawsuits on behalf of over 400 clients against Pohl in four different Harris County courts. Pohl conspired with wife Donalda Pohl, paralegal Edgar Jaimes, and three Mississippi runners (Walker, Seymour, Ladner) to illegally solicit clients. Details barratry scheme using sham companies (Helping Hands, GM Settlement Verification Team, Precision Marketing). For BP litigation, runners went door-to-door; Precision paid $300-$400 per client, Pohl paid Precision up to $1,500 per client. For auto accidents, Pohl used Google Alerts for crashes, sent runners to hospitals/homes/funerals; paid up to $7,500 per client plus 33% of fees. HH Texas paid HH Mississippi $2,500 per referral. Walker testified payments were 'barratry' and he was 'a pass-through for barratry money' — over $5 million total. Santana solicited clients, was paid $5,000 per case plus fee percentage, told minorities 'were easier to sign up.' Pohl paid Santana $50,000 cash in 'trick or treat' bags to sign gag agreement. Talley solicited 800+ BP claims and 20+ auto cases, carried blank Pohl contracts. Walker eventually indicted and imprisoned. Pohl refused to pay runners; they sued in Mississippi federal court. Over 400 solicited clients contacted Kassab for representation. Kassab filed grievances against Pohl per Rule 8.03. Pohl's suit described as retaliatory. |
| 19 | 2 2 | Counterclaim for Civil Barratry | Pohl judicially admitted barratry is not legal malpractice, discovery rule does not apply, and assignment is permitted. Kassab brings counterclaims based on 150 express assignments of interest, pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.069 (compulsory counterclaim timely if filed within 30 days of answer deadline). Remaining counterclaims to be filed by November 7, 2018. |
| 20 | 2 2 | Prayer for Relief | Requests Plaintiffs recover nothing; seeks actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief to which Counter-Plaintiffs may be justly entitled. |
| 21 | 3 3 | Introduction and Background (Paragraphs 1-9) | Pohl introduces himself as a lawyer (LOMAP). Describes being introduced to Walker, Maxwell, Robinson, and Seymour in April 2012, and Ladner six to eight weeks later, as professional marketing consultants with BP Deepwater Horizon experience. Robinson's father-in-law, described as a prominent local attorney, met with Pohl. Pohl contracted with Maxwell-Walker for exclusive public-relations and client-liaison services. Was told Maxwell-Walker's Mississippi attorneys reviewed and approved the agreement. Walker, Seymour, and Ladner (after Robinson withdrew July 15, 2012) became 'PR Consultants.' Precision Marketing Group succeeded Maxwell-Walker in January 2013. PR Consultants designated Walker as business manager/spokesperson; Ladner handled staff training. PR Consultants were solely responsible for hiring, paying, tax withholding, and supervising all employees and contractors. PR Consultants represented they would provide services exclusively to Pohl and maintain confidentiality. |
| 22 | 3 3 | Terms of Agreement (Paragraphs 10-16) | Pohl reviewed Walker, Seymour, and Ladner affidavits and the May 25, 2012 and July 15, 2012 contracts attached to the Complaint. Denies the agreement was a 'barratry agreement.' Agreement provided for hourly fees, retainer, and expenses capped at 21% of LOMAP's 40% interest in the BP representation with Williamson. The percentage-of-fees clause was a ceiling/cap, not an independent promise to pay a percentage. PR Consultants' own Mississippi attorneys reviewed and approved the contracts. Notably, in the Federal Court Lawsuit, PR Consultants themselves alleged payment on hourly-rate basis and denied entitlement to percentage of fees (Exhibit 1-A). The $1,500/hour rate was considered excessive but accepted only because of the percentage cap. PR Consultants wanted to confer with their attorneys before finalizing the agreement and confirmed their attorneys approved the terms. |
| 23 | 3 3 | PR Consultants' Misconduct (Paragraphs 17-27) | PR Consultants' services were substandard: improperly vetted claims, inadequately trained/supervised staff. PR Consultants were primarily supposed to run information booths at public events (boat shows, festivals) and answer follow-up calls. From the outset, PR Consultants violated contracts by failing to keep daily time records and making false representations. Sent falsified and inflated invoices; systematically overcharged Pohl. Bogus invoices bore 'PAID' stamps dated before preparation dates (Exhibit 1-C). Charged up to $1,000/week in fictitious 'miscellaneous marketing' expenses from approximately March 2013 through September 2013. Walker admitted charges were not truthful when confronted. PR Consultants misrepresented expenses and kept the excess. PR Consultants secretly diverted hundreds of claimants to competing attorneys while being paid for exclusive services, and marketed their own services to competitors by offering reduced overhead rates (since Pohl was paying overhead). The term 'barratry fees' was never used before Pohl's counterclaims in the Federal Court Lawsuit — concocted after PR Consultants were caught stealing. Nicholson and Favre both stated PR Consultants admitted stealing from Pohl (Exhibit 1-B). |
| 24 | 3 3 | Theft and Misappropriation (Paragraphs 28-29) | Ladner admitted absconding with approximately 17 containers of client files from Pohl's satellite office, later delivered to Favre without Pohl's consent. PR Consultants and Nicholson refused to return four computers containing Pohl's software, data, specialized legal forms, marketing information, trade secrets, proprietary forms, fee agreements, internal emails, and work product. Despite being informed items were stolen, Favre purchased them; it appears Kassab eventually purchased them from Favre. Theft made more egregious because PR Consultants had understood the confidential nature of the information from the outset. |
| 25 | 3 3 | BP Claims Wind-Down and Rollover Cases (Paragraphs 30-32) | In spring 2013, BP sued the settlement program administrator and activity halted. After April 2013, Pohl and Williamson did not agree to represent additional BP claimants. Pohl retained PR Consultants for automobile/tire defect and rollover cases. Pohl specifically denies instructing PR Consultants to improperly solicit anyone and denies engaging in any conspiracy to commit barratry. Closed Mississippi satellite office in February 2014. Pohl had developed attorney contacts in many states and business contacts in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere related to ranching and horse breeding who referred cases. |
| 26 | 3 3 | Specific Case Denials (Paragraphs 33-36) | Shannon family: Pohl believes he was contacted by acquaintance/family member of decedent; may have asked Walker/Ladner to assist with securing evidence and referred family to Helping Hand Financing, LLC (which Pohl has no ownership interest in) for non-recourse loan. Denies instructing improper solicitation. Zubalik family: No specific recollection of instructing anyone to contact family; POA attached to Complaint appears to be his form but is not signed by him; immediately disclaimed interest (Exhibit 1-G). Suggests contacts may have been made by Julia Porter and Monica Chaney, who set up unauthorized website using Pohl's name; Pohl sent cease and desist letters (Exhibits 1-D, 1-E). Christopher Forrest incident: contacted Pohl's firm in May 2017 with a fee agreement bearing Pohl's name, over 3 years after BP claims closed; Forrest refused to identify who provided the document (Exhibit 1-F). |
| 27 | 3 3 | Rule Violation Denials (Paragraphs 37-47) | Pohl denies violating specific Texas Disciplinary Rules. Re fee division (Rules 1.04(f)(1), (f)(2), (g)): Complaint doesn't identify specific client; fee agreement (Exhibit 43) doesn't appear prepared/signed by Pohl; even if it were, both Williamson and Pohl were identified so client would have knowingly retained both. Williamson/Pohl fee split was 60/40 consistent with Texas law (Exhibit 10, Williamson depo pp. 58-59), with flexibility based on actual contribution. Denies violating Rules 1.15(a)(1), (d) (withdrawal); 5.04(a) (fee sharing with non-lawyer); 7.01(a) (firm name); 7.03(b), (d) (paying for referrals — except for reasonable PR/marketing services per Rules); 7.06(a), (b) (continuing improper employment); 8.04(a)(1)-(4), (a)(9), (a)(12), (b) (crime, fraud, deceit, barratry, obstruction). Any unaddressed allegations are denied. |
| 28 | 4 4 | General Denial | Pursuant to Rule 92, Montague Defendants deny all material allegations in Pohl's Original Petition and any future amended petitions, demanding strict proof by preponderance of the evidence at trial. |
| 29 | 4 4 | Affirmative and Additional Defenses | Montague Defendants assert 12 affirmative defenses in the alternative, subject to their special appearance: (2.1) lack of standing/no duty owed — no attorney-client relationship with Pohl, not party to underlying litigation or settlement, and attorney immunity for referral of cases as traditional legal services; (2.2) failure to state a claim — conspiracy and related torts fail because liability for underlying tort is foreclosed where only link is bald assertion Montague 'knew' information was stolen, citing Frankoff v. Norman; (2.3) comparative responsibility/contributory negligence under Chapter 33, including reduction based on Plaintiffs, other Defendants, settling defendants, and responsible third parties; (2.4) excuse, legal justification, and good faith; (2.5) no legally cognizable damages/failure to mitigate; (2.6) failure to satisfy conditions precedent; (2.7) estoppel; (2.8) waiver; (2.9) unclean hands; (2.10) illegality; (2.11) statute of limitations; (2.12) Chapter 41 limitations on exemplary damages. |
| 30 | 4 4 | Request for Disclosure | Subject to their special appearance, pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Montague Defendants request Plaintiffs disclose all information and material described in Rule 194.2 within 30 days of service. |
| 31 | 4 4 | Prayer | Requests the court grant their special appearance or, alternatively, deny all relief against Montague Defendants and render a take-nothing judgment, with costs awarded to Defendants. |
| 32 | 5 5 | Pohl's Accusations Against Kassab (pp. 85-88) | Pohl accuses Kassab and his 'crew' (Tina Nicholson, Doug Montague, June Allison, Kirk Ladner, Scott Walker, Scott Favre) of stealing his files, robbing his office, hacking his computers, soliciting his clients with lies and material omissions to initiate suits against him, and thereby causing his clients to suffer damages in their own cases. When pressed whether he personally witnessed these acts, Pohl clarified: 'I wasn't there, and I didn't see who actually broke in and I didn't see who hacked my computer. So I'm not a witness to it. I just know the event occurred.' Pohl consistently refused to attribute acts to Kassab alone, instead saying 'you, your co-counsel and your crew.' |
| 33 | 5 5 | Timeline and Location of Alleged Theft (pp. 86-92) | Pohl places the theft at his Gulfport, Mississippi office around 2014, occurring in connection with the closing of the office. The theft 'didn't occur at once' and continued 'as late as probably 2016, maybe 15.' Pohl alleged Favre paid Walker and Ladner $85,000 to rob his office based on 'private documents that I got,' with additional money paid to hack computers and sell passwords to Kassab or his co-counsel. |
| 34 | 5 5 | Pohl's Failure to Report (pp. 89-93) | Kassab methodically establishes that Pohl never reported the alleged theft to any authority. Pohl admitted he did not: file a police report anywhere, file a State Bar grievance against Kassab, contact the Harris County DA, or contact the Texas Attorney General. His only law enforcement contact was speaking to a retired District Attorney in Oklahoma about 'the feasibility of filing charges.' Pohl explained: he 'prayed about it and hoped that a just result would ensue'; wanted to 'spend time to reflect' and not do anything 'precipitous'; was 'preoccupied because the criminals involved in this were extorting money from me and they wanting millions of dollars for the return of my stolen goods'; and noted the events 'didn't occur in Texas' regarding the Harris County DA. When asked for evidence of the password sale, Pohl admitted 'I haven't marshaled all the evidence.' |
| 35 | 5 5 | Reporter's Certificate (pp. 318-319) | Certified by Laurie Carlisle, CSR, Texas CSR 2205, Firm No. CRF 10402. Deposition taken from 9:26 a.m. to 5:05 p.m. at Shepherd Prewett offices, 770 South Post Oak Lane, Suite 420, Houston, Texas. Lance Kassab used 5 hours 59 minutes of examination time. Other attorneys present: Billy Shepherd (0h0m, for Defendant Michael Pohl), Brock Akers (0h0m, for Defendants Robert Ammons and The Ammons Law Firm), Mark Collmer (0h0m, for Defendant Donalda Pohl). |
| 36 | 6 6 | Grievance Form (General Information) | Standard State Bar grievance form identifying complainant Lance Christopher Kassab of The Kassab Law Firm, 1420 Alabama, Houston, Texas 77004. Respondent is Michael Pohl, 2254 Stratton Forest Heights, Colorado Springs, CO 80906. Filed pursuant to Rule 8.03(a) on behalf of approximately 10,000 victims surrounding the Gulf Coast. Activity complained of occurred in Harris County, Texas and throughout the Gulf Coast including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. |
| 37 | 6 6 | Statement of the Grievance (Summary) | Concise summary alleging Pohl conspired with Cyndi Rusnak and Jimmy Williamson (deceased) to violate Texas Penal Code § 38.12, Rule 7.03, and various other disciplinary rules by paying runners to illegally solicit approximately 10,000 prospective clients along the Gulf Coast for the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation, and splitting fees in violation of Rule 1.04 without proper client consents. Kassab notes an 'unwritten rule' at the State Bar to dismiss grievances when civil cases are pending, based on his 20+ years of legal malpractice practice. |
| 38 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — Facts: BP Deepwater Horizon Barratry Scheme | After the April 20, 2010 oil spill, Pohl orchestrated a conspiracy with Williamson and Rusnak. Williamson and Rusnak practiced under 'Williamson & Rusnak.' Fee split: 40% Pohl, 60% Williamson/Rusnak. Beginning April 2012, Pohl arranged meeting with Walker; Williamson confirmed the venture. Seymour (Hancock County public official) recruited via Walker. Pohl and Williamson provided advertisements promoting their services. In early May 2012, Walker introduced Dane Maxwell of CMV Investigations, hired to cold-call clients at $1,000 per client plus expenses — paid up to $2.47 million. May 25, 2012 written agreement: Pohl to pay runners 30% of his 40% interest (12% Walker, 12% Seymour, 6% Robinson). July 15, 2012: new agreement after Robinson departed — 22.5% to Ladner/Walker/Seymour (7.5% each). The Lawyers paid roughly $5 million in 'barratry pass-through money.' Walker candidly admitted it was barratry. Barratry pyramid: CMV $1,000/client → mid-level runners $100-$250 → low-level runners $20-$30. |
| 39 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — Facts: Specific Runner Operations | Jacqueline Taylor: low-level runner recruited through CMV by Karen Boykin; trained to target business owners then farmers; paid $20-$30/client via Wal-Mart cash cards; solicited 100+ clients. Monica Chaney was Taylor's CMV contact. Magdalena Santana: recruited by Seymour July 2012; hired by Williamson/Pohl; instructed to make cold calls, target high-paying settlement zones, beachfront properties, hotels, churches ('easy as they didn't have to provide tax returns'); solicited 77 claims first week; approximately 1,500 total. Paid $250/claim through Precision. Pohl told her 'it was illegal for him to pay her directly.' Santana and Taylor were provided blank Williamson-Pohl-Rusnak contracts and advertisements. Eventually approximately 9,800 potential or actual BP clients illegally solicited. |
| 40 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — Facts: Federal Litigation | October 18, 2014: Walker, Ladner, Seymour, and Precision filed suit against Pohl and Williamson in Mississippi federal court alleging breach of the barratry joint venture. Lawyers argued they were not partners/joint venturers and agreements were illegal/unenforceable. Federal court rejected this, finding prima facie evidence of partnership/joint venture and concluding agreements violated Texas law (which did not apply to the runners). Rusnak added as a party. Walker/Seymour/Ladner assigned rights to Precision; Precision purchased by Favre. Lawyers settled hoping to 'forever conceal their barratry conspiracy.' |
| 41 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — Facts: Rollover Accident Scheme | Pohl used same runners for rollover accidents. Created 'Helping Hands Group' and 'GM Settlement Verification Team' as fronts. Pohl directed runners to accidents immediately, typically paying 2.5% of attorney's fees per case. Example: September 29, 2012, Pohl sent Walker article about death in rollover two days earlier — Walker immediately dispatched runners. Helping Hands operated by Donalda Pohl: victims signed contracts allowing attorney selection (always Pohl) in exchange for non-recourse loans at 18% interest. Contracts allowed Helping Hands to charge up to 40% of recovery. |
| 42 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — Facts: Cheatham Case | Mark Cheatham lost ex-wife LaDonna and two daughters in February 15, 2014 rollover. Runner Kenneth Talley arrived February 18, 2014 (3 days after accident), stopped at Rouses for flowers, brought a notary. Cheatham signed Helping Hands agreement, limited POA, and sold wrecked vehicle for $2,000 (funded by Helping Hands at 18% interest). Pohl signed attorney-client contract February 21, 2014 (6 days after accident). Retention Agreement with Precision: $1,500/hour, not to exceed 30% of Pohl's 40% fee, split Ladner 15%/Walker 15%. Talley's compensation: $10,000 per million recovered. |
| 43 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — Facts: Fee Reverse-Engineering | Diaz/Curran case: $875,000 settlement. Pohl disclosed amount so Walker could manufacture hours to match 22.5%: $306,250 × 22.5% = $68,906.25 ÷ $1,500/hour = 45.93 hours, rounded to 46. Sanchez case: $680,000 settlement. Same reverse-engineering. Operating Agreement simply stated 22.5% of LOMAP's interest — no hourly rate mentioned. Proves fee was percentage-based, not hourly. |
| 44 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — Facts: GM Settlement Verification Team | Richard Shenkan of the Shenkan Law Firm caught Ladner posing as a GM Settlement Verification Team member at a client's home in Mississippi. Ladner claimed to earn $25,000 per catastrophic injury case referred to Pohl. |
| 45 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — History of Barratry Law in Texas | Barratry has been a crime in Texas since 1876 (Reynolds v. State). In 1989, § 82.065 allowed voiding of barratrous contracts. In 2011, S.B. 1716 created civil liability under § 82.0651 with $10,000 penalty, actual damages, and attorney's fees — to be 'liberally construed.' In 2013, H.B. 1711 amended to close loophole where attorneys released clients after signing, and aligned statute with Penal Code § 38.12 and Rule 7.03. |
| 46 | 6 6 | Exhibit 'A' — Violations Section | Catalogs specific rule violations: Rules 1.04(f)(1)&(2)&(g) (improper fee division without client consent), 1.15(a)(1) (failure to withdraw), 5.04(a)&(d)(1) (fee sharing with non-lawyers), 7.03(b)&(d) (paying for solicitation), 7.05(a)&(c), 7.06(a)&(b) (accepting improperly obtained employment), 8.04(a)(1)(2)(3)(9)&(12)&(b) (barratry as serious crime). Penal Code violations: § 38.12(a)(4), § 38.12(b)(1)(2)&(3), § 32.43(b) (commercial bribery). |
| 47 | 6 6 | July 3, 2018 Supplemental Letter | Supplements grievance with: Santana's 350+ page deposition confirming original affidavit; transcribed Kassab-Santana conversation (Ex. A); Pohl's own affidavit admitting Walker/Ladner/Seymour were his 'representatives' (Ex. B); computer forensics expert Andrew Paul Mozingo affidavit with Walker's text messages (Ex. C); spreadsheet showing runner payments always matched contract percentages (Ex. D); documents showing Pohl contacted accident victims within days of fatal crashes in violation of § 38.12(d)(2)(A) — Lacy Reese email (Ex. E) and Mark Cheatham declaration (Ex. F); Pohl deposition excerpts (Ex. G) showing he operated law offices in Mississippi and Tennessee without licenses (potential Rules 5.05/7.01 violations), approached Kassab's client during deposition offering to settle directly (potential Rule 4.02 violation). Paid Santana $50,000 cash to suppress testimony (criminal act, Rules 3.04/8.04 violations; Chapter 36 Texas Penal Code). |
| 48 | 6 6 | July 20, 2018 Supplemental Letter | Responds to Pohl's July 17, 2018 reply in grievance proceeding. Addresses $50,000 cash payment to Santana — not a 'non-disparagement' agreement; Santana crossed out language suggesting she had been confused ('in dire need of money and not thinking clearly') and crossed out 'in order to clear my conscience and set the record straight,' showing she was thinking clearly when making original allegations. Agreement language required Santana not to 'publish in writing or by electronic mail any charges of wrongdoing, criminal conduct, illegal conduct or unethical conduct' and not to 'relate such charges to anyone verbally' — functionally an agreement not to testify. Accuses Pohl's lawyers of personal attacks rather than addressing merits. Rebuts Pohl's claim that runners operated under Mississippi attorneys' guidance — cites Walker's own deposition contradicting this. |
| 49 | 7 7 | Summary | Characterizes Pohl's lawsuit as retaliatory, filed in response to Kassab's exercise of free speech, petition, and association rights. Argues the TCPA mandates dismissal because the suit targets Kassab for filing barratry lawsuits and grievances on behalf of over 400 illegally solicited clients. |
| 50 | 7 7 | Evidence | Lists 32 exhibits supporting the motion, including the Declaration of Lance Christopher Kassab, the Walker Second Amended Petition from the Mississippi federal litigation, multiple deposition excerpts (Walker, Santana, Talley, Jaimes, Pohl), affidavits, court orders from related proceedings, petitions from the Barratry Lawsuits, grievance pleadings, Favre affidavit, and orders from Gauthia and Cheatham proceedings. |
| 51 | 7 7 | Facts and Procedural History | Details how Mississippi runners Walker, Ladner, and Seymour sued Pohl in federal court, exposing an elaborate barratry scheme. Walker testified the payments were 'barratry pass-through money' totaling over $5 million. Santana and Talley provided sworn testimony about personally soliciting accident victims at hospitals, funerals, and homes. Pohl paid $50,000 cash to Santana to sign a gag agreement. Kassab obtained information from public federal court records (PACER) and from Precision Marketing/Favre, then sent state-bar-approved advertisement letters to potential barratry victims. Over 400 individuals retained Kassab, who filed four separate barratry lawsuits and grievances. |
| 52 | 7 7 | Argument & Authorities — Step One: TCPA Applicability | Argues this lawsuit is 'based on, relates to, or is in response to' Kassab's exercise of (1) right of free speech (lawsuits and grievances discussing Pohl's barratry are matters of public concern — legal services are 'services in the marketplace'), (2) right to petition (filing lawsuits and grievances in judicial/governmental proceedings), and (3) right of association (joining with clients to pursue common interests). Cites Collins v. Collins and Reeves v. Harbor American as analogous cases where conversion/trade secret claims triggered TCPA protection. |
| 53 | 7 7 | Argument & Authorities — Step Two: Pohl Cannot Establish Prima Facie Case | Argues Pohl cannot prove conversion because Precision Marketing, not Pohl, owned the client lists and information (Favre testified they were 'solely the work product and property of Precision Marketing'). Trade secrets claim fails because client names and addresses are publicly known and Kassab reasonably believed Precision Marketing owned the materials. Conspiracy claim fails derivatively because the underlying torts fail. |
| 54 | 7 7 | Attorney Immunity Defense | All of Kassab's complained-of conduct — obtaining client information, filing lawsuits, filing grievances — falls within the scope of client representation and is protected by attorney immunity under Cantey Hanger v. Byrd. Cites Highland Capital as directly analogous: plaintiff sued lawyer for obtaining stolen property and threatening disclosure, but claims dismissed on attorney immunity because conduct fell 'squarely within the scope of representation.' |
| 55 | 7 7 | Statute of Limitations Defense | Pohl knew of his claims in 2014 when he moved from his Gulfport office. A Precision Marketing secretary told him clients were being diverted (per August 30, 2016 deposition). Pohl signed an affidavit admitting he learned of the basis of his claims during Mississippi Litigation discovery beginning October 2014. He testified he chose not to act because he 'wanted to spend time to reflect on it.' Filing in August 2018 exceeded the 2-year conversion/conspiracy limitations (§ 16.003) and the 3-year TUTSA limitations (§ 16.010). |
| 56 | 7 7 | Res Judicata Defense | Pohl sued Precision Marketing and other defendants in the Mississippi Litigation for conversion, fraud, and unjust enrichment based on the same alleged misappropriation. Settled and dismissed with prejudice on April 21, 2017. Kassab's claims arise from the same transactions. Under Barr v. Resolution Trust and Lemon v. Spann, Pohl's claims are precluded. |
| 57 | 7 7 | Attorney's Fees and Sanctions | Requests $36,750 in attorney's fees (70 hours at $450/hr for Kassab = $31,500; 15 hours at $350/hr for associate = $5,250). Conditional appellate fees: $45,000 for court of appeals, $5,000 for rehearing motion, $10,000 for Texas Supreme Court petition/response, $25,000 for Supreme Court briefing, $5,000 for Supreme Court rehearing = $90,000 total. Requests minimum $50,000 in sanctions. Argues Pohl and Reynolds Frizzell filed frivolously and with retaliatory motive. Reynolds Frizzell previously attempted sanctions against Kassab in Gauthia matter (involving Arnold & Itkin). Frizzell attempted to file this lawsuit in the 55th Judicial District to create conflict of interest; Judge Shadwick denied it. |
| 58 | 8 8 | Rule 47 Statement | Kassab as Counter-Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. |
| 59 | 8 8 | Parties | Identifies all parties: Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl (individual lawyer residing in Colorado) and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl. Defendants: Scott Favre and Scott M. Favre PA LLC (Mississippi), Precision Marketing Group LLC (Mississippi), F. Douglas Montague III and Montague Pittman & Varnado PA (Mississippi), Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (Texas). Counter-Plaintiffs: Lance Christopher Kassab (individual) and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (Texas professional corporation). |
| 60 | 8 8 | Jurisdiction and Venue | Matter within jurisdictional limits. Venue proper because one or more defendants reside in Harris County and substantial part of acts/omissions occurred there. |
| 61 | 8 8 | General Denial | Generally denies all allegations by Pohl and requests Court require Pohl to carry burden of proof. |
| 62 | 8 8 | Affirmative Defenses | Pleads 17 affirmative defenses: (1) statute of limitations, (2) justification, (3) estoppel, (4) waiver, (5) ratification, (6) release, (7) unclean hands, (8) contribution, (9) failure to mitigate damages, (10) lack of standing, (11) accord and satisfaction, (12) assumption of the risk, (13) illegality/criminal acts, (14) First Amendment, (15) attorney immunity, (16) in pari delicto, (17) res judicata. |
| 63 | 8 8 | Specific Denials | Specifically denies that all conditions precedent regarding Pohl's claims of conversion and theft of trade secrets were performed or occurred prior to Pohl filing suit. |
| 64 | 8 8 | Factual Background and Procedural History | Extensive factual narrative: LCK is a plaintiffs' legal malpractice lawyer. Kassab filed four lawsuits on behalf of over 400 clients against Pohl in four different Harris County courts. Pohl conspired with wife Donalda Pohl, paralegal Jaimes, and three Mississippi runners (Walker, Seymour, Ladner) using sham companies (HH Texas, HH Mississippi, Precision Marketing, GM Team). For BP litigation, runners went door-to-door; Precision paid $300-$400/client; Pohl paid Precision $1,500/client; fee percentage disguised as $1,500/hour rate. For auto accidents, Pohl used Google Alerts; paid up to $7,500/client plus 33% of fees; HH Texas paid HH Mississippi $2,500 per referral. Santana solicited 'dozens and dozens' of cases, paid $5,000/case plus fee percentage, told minorities 'were easier to sign up.' Pohl paid Santana $50,000 cash in 'trick or treat' bags to sign gag agreement; she signed 'under duress.' December 19, 2017 retraction affidavit does not state prior testimony is untrue. Talley solicited 800+ BP claims ($75-$350/client) and 20+ auto cases ($1,400 plus expenses), followed solicitation checklist, carried blank Pohl contracts. Walker indicted and imprisoned. Over 400 clients retained Kassab. Kassab filed grievances per Rule 8.03. Pohl's suit is retaliatory. |
| 65 | 8 8 | Counterclaim for Civil Barratry | Pohl judicially admitted barratry is not legal malpractice; discovery rule does not apply; assignment permitted. Kassab brings counterclaims based on 150 express assignments pursuant to § 16.069. Filed contemporaneously with answer, therefore timely. Remaining counterclaims to be filed by November 7, 2018. |
| 66 | 8 8 | Prayer for Relief | Plaintiffs take nothing; Kassab recovers actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief. |
| 67 | 9 9 | Introduction | Frames the case as Kassab paying $250,000 to obtain stolen client names, addresses, and files, then disguising the purchase as an 'expert witness' engagement while agreeing to indemnify Favre against Pohl's anticipated claims. Accuses Kassab of taking directly inconsistent positions on the TCPA in the Brumfield litigation before this same Court. Notes Kassab attached a 'strictly confidential' State Bar grievance to his Motion and uses the grievance mechanism as part of his litigation strategy. |
| 68 | 9 9 | Argument — Pohl's Allegations Do Not Implicate the TCPA | Argues that TCPA applicability turns on the factual bases of the claims, not the defendant's characterization of plaintiff's motivations. Pohl's claims target Kassab's knowing purchase of stolen property and misappropriation of trade secrets — wrongful acts, not protected speech. Courts must not 'blindly accept' defendants' attempts to recharacterize claims. Petition is the 'best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action.' |
| 69 | 9 9 | Kassab Has Not Sustained His Burden Under Prong One | Argues Kassab provided no evidence that the lawsuit is retaliatory. Pohl's petition references Kassab's actions but that is factual recitation, not a judicial admission of retaliatory motive. The right to petition belongs to Kassab's clients, not Kassab himself. Kassab supplied no evidence of retaliatory motivation despite substantial exhibits. |
| 70 | 9 9 | The Commercial Exception Precludes TCPA Application | Argues that even if Kassab reframes the claims as targeting his client solicitation, such activity falls within the commercial speech exception (§ 27.010(b)). Kassab is primarily engaged in selling legal services; his solicitation of Pohl's clients was commercial. Cites Miller Weisbrod (attorney advertising within commercial exception) and NCDR v. Mauze (5th Cir.). Notes Kassab himself argued for the commercial exception in Brumfield litigation. Also argues Kassab's filing of barratry lawsuits implicates his clients' protected rights, not his own, and even those filings and the grievance fall within the commercial exception as litigation tactics. |
| 71 | 9 9 | Clear and Specific Evidence of Prima Facie Case | Sets forth elements of conversion, TUTSA violation, and conspiracy with supporting evidence from pleadings and three affidavits (Shepherd, Pohl, Frizzell). Describes the Favre-Kassab Agreement: $250,000 upfront payment, indemnification clause, confidentiality requirement. Notes Kassab admitted obtaining 'names and addresses of Pohl's former clients or prospective clients.' Favre's and Nicholson's contradictory testimony about the contracts supports inference of knowing purchase of stolen materials. Enumerates element-by-element prima facie showing for all three causes of action. |
| 72 | 9 9 | Alternative Motion for Continuance and Discovery | Requests continuance and discovery if the Court is inclined to grant the motion. Seeks document discovery regarding the purchase and drafts of the Favre-Kassab Agreement, plus deposition of Lance Kassab. Notes TCPA permits up to 120-day continuance under § 27.004(c). Request is sworn by attached Declaration of Jean Frizzell. |
| 73 | 9 9 | Kassab Cannot Conclusively Establish His Defenses | Rebuts all three defenses: (1) Limitations has not run — Favre-Kassab Agreement was executed November 10, 2016, less than two years before suit filed; (2) Attorney immunity does not apply — Kassab's wrongful acts occurred before he had a single client; (3) Res judicata does not apply — Kassab was not a party to the Mississippi settlement. |
| 74 | 9 9 | Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs | Requests $33,352 in fees for responding to the motion. Argues Kassab knew the motion was frivolous because he successfully argued the commercial exception in Brumfield litigation before the same Court. Kassab's failure to even mention the commercial exception reveals bad faith. Also notes Kassab previously sought but was denied sanctions in an unrelated case involving Reynolds Frizzell LLP and his effort to relitigate that here is inappropriate. |
| 75 | 10 10 | Objections — Plaintiffs' Exhibit A (Affidavit of Billy Shepherd) | Objects to the Shepherd affidavit on multiple grounds: (1) it is not based on 'personal knowledge' and does not state facts are 'true and correct,' so perjury does not attach — it is merely a statement by Pohl's interested counsel; (2) it fails to properly authenticate business records under Tex. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(10) — Shepherd is not shown to be custodian of records; (3) all attached documents are hearsay upon hearsay; (4) Shepherd failed to provide the requisite notice of his filing. Requests the affidavit and all attached documents be struck from the record. |
| 76 | 10 10 | Objections — Plaintiffs' Exhibit B (Declaration of Michael A. Pohl) | Objects to Paragraphs 3 through 9 of Pohl's declaration as conclusory and constituting no evidence as a matter of law. Challenges each paragraph individually: Para 3 (ownership of trade secrets — fails to describe what information is or explain ownership vs. Favre's claim); Para 4 (wrongful dominion — no factual support for why Kassab's control over lists obtained from Favre is wrongful); Para 5 (damages — doesn't identify trade secrets or explain how damaged); Para 6 (substantial measures to maintain confidentiality — conclusory, information ended up in Favre's hands); Para 7 (independent economic value — no underlying facts, doesn't describe materials or how they provide economic value); Para 8 (misappropriation and unjust enrichment — no facts explaining how, purported loss is speculative); Para 9 (conspiracy — conclusory statement within a conclusory statement, no facts supporting alleged conspiracy claims). |
| 77 | 10 10 | Reply — Documents Came from Precision, Not Pohl | Argues any documents Kassab obtained from Favre or Nicholson came into Favre's possession when he purchased Precision Marketing Group. Precision owned the documents, not Pohl. Even if documents were Pohl's legal files, they would belong to the clients under Texas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(d), not Pohl. Cites Texas Supreme Court and other authority that attorney is agent of client, work product belongs to client, and failure to turn over client files is 'willful and malicious' dishonorable conduct. Therefore Pohl lacks standing for conversion or trade secret claims. |
| 78 | 10 10 | Reply — The Commercial Exception Does Not Apply | Argues Pohl failed to prove all four Castleman elements. The party asserting the exemption bears the burden of proving its applicability. Pohl's claims are for conversion and theft of trade secrets related to purchasing marketing lists and client files — not a 'commercial transaction involving legal services.' Kassab is not primarily engaged in purchasing marketing lists, which is the business Pohl's claims arise from. Pohl has not established that Kassab engaged in the conduct in his capacity as a seller of legal services, or that the intended audience were actual or potential customers for services Kassab is primarily engaged in. |
| 79 | 10 10 | Conclusion & Prayer | Requests the Court grant the TCPA motion, order Pohl take nothing, and award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs as required by the statute. |
| 80 | 11 11 | Rule 47 Statement | Kassab as Counter-Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. |
| 81 | 11 11 | Parties | Identifies all parties: Plaintiffs Pohl (individual, Colorado) and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl; Defendants Favre and entities (Mississippi), Precision Marketing Group (Mississippi), Montague and firm (Mississippi), Nicholson and Baker Nicholson (Texas); Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab (individual, Texas) and Kassab P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (Texas). |
| 82 | 11 11 | Jurisdiction and Venue | Jurisdiction and venue proper in Harris County where one or more defendants reside and substantial acts occurred. |
| 83 | 11 11 | General Denial | Generally denies all allegations and requests Pohl carry his burden of proof. |
| 84 | 11 11 | Affirmative Defenses | 17 affirmative defenses: (1) statute of limitations, (2) justification, (3) estoppel, (4) waiver, (5) ratification, (6) release, (7) unclean hands, (8) contribution, (9) failure to mitigate damages, (10) lack of standing, (11) accord and satisfaction, (12) assumption of the risk, (13) illegality/criminal acts, (14) First Amendment, (15) attorney immunity, (16) in pari delicto, (17) res judicata. |
| 85 | 11 11 | Specific Denials | Specifically denies that all conditions precedent regarding Plaintiffs' claims of conversion and theft of trade secrets were performed or occurred prior to Plaintiffs filing suit against Kassab. |
| 86 | 11 11 | Factual Background and Procedural History | Extensive factual recitation of alleged barratry scheme: Kassab filed four lawsuits on behalf of over 400 clients against Pohl. Pohl conspired with his wife Dona, paralegal Edgar Jaimes, and three runners (Walker, Seymour, Ladner) to illegally solicit clients. Details runner operations for BP litigation ($300-400 per client obtained, $1,500 per referral), auto accident solicitation via Google Alerts with runners visiting hospitals/homes/funerals, the GM Settlement Verification Team sham entity, and the Helping Hands financing structure. Includes Santana testimony (runner who solicited dozens of cases, paid $5,000 per case plus percentage of fees), the $50,000 gag agreement delivered in 'trick or treat' bags, Talley testimony (solicited 800+ BP claims and 20+ auto cases), Walker's imprisonment and subsequent Federal Litigation against Pohl. |
| 87 | 11 11 | Counterclaim for Civil Barratry | Expands counterclaims from 150 to 235 assigned barratry claimants. Based on Pohl's judicial admission that barratry is not legal malpractice, therefore assignment is permitted under Texas law and the discovery rule does not apply. Counterclaims filed pursuant to § 16.069 and are timely because filed within 30 days of original answer. |
| 88 | 11 11 | Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Designates Billy Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, and Kirk Ladner as responsible third parties who are the sole or proximate cause of Pohl's alleged damages. Shepherd represented Pohl in Federal Litigation and negotiated settlement but wholly failed to ensure return/destruction of subject property. Shepherd's malfeasance was either negligent or intentional — may have intentionally failed to protect Pohl to secure future lucrative employment. Walker, Seymour, and Ladner sold Precision to Favre and transferred all subject assets/property to Favre. Walker testified under oath that they owned all assets and had legal right to transfer. |
| 89 | 11 11 | Prayer for Relief | Pohl takes nothing; Kassab recovers actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief — against Plaintiffs and/or any Third-Party Defendants. |
| 90 | 12 12 | Rule 47 Statement | Kassab as Counter-Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. |
| 91 | 12 12 | Parties | Same parties identified as in prior answers: Plaintiffs Pohl (Colorado) and Law Offices of Pohl; Defendants Favre/entities (Mississippi), Precision Marketing (Mississippi), Montague/firm (Mississippi), Nicholson/Baker Nicholson (Texas); Counter-Plaintiffs Kassab (individual, Texas) and Kassab P.C. (Texas). |
| 92 | 12 12 | Jurisdiction and Venue | Same jurisdictional and venue allegations — proper in Harris County. |
| 93 | 12 12 | General Denial | Generally denies all allegations and requests Pohl carry his burden of proof. |
| 94 | 12 12 | Affirmative Defenses | Same 17 affirmative defenses: (1) statute of limitations, (2) justification, (3) estoppel, (4) waiver, (5) ratification, (6) release, (7) unclean hands, (8) contribution, (9) failure to mitigate, (10) lack of standing, (11) accord and satisfaction, (12) assumption of risk, (13) illegality/criminal acts, (14) First Amendment, (15) attorney immunity, (16) in pari delicto, (17) res judicata. |
| 95 | 12 12 | Specific Denials | Same specific denial of conditions precedent for conversion and trade secret claims. |
| 96 | 12 12 | Factual Background and Procedural History | Substantively identical to prior answers. Same detailed barratry scheme narrative including runner operations, Santana and Talley testimony, $50,000 gag agreement, Walker imprisonment, over 400 clients, four Harris County lawsuits, grievances. |
| 97 | 12 12 | Counterclaim for Civil Barratry | Expands counterclaims to 242 assigned barratry claimants (up from 235 in Second Amended Answer). Same legal basis: Pohl judicially admitted barratry is not legal malpractice, so assignment is permitted; counterclaims timely under § 16.069 because filed within 30 days of original answer. |
| 98 | 12 12 | Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Enhanced from Second Amended Answer: Shepherd 'further knew that Favre and/or his counsel had given documents to third parties, including Kassab and others prior to negotiating a settlement in the Federal Litigation.' Specifies 'the documents, assets and all other property that Precision owned that were transferred to Favre are the subject of Pohl's lawsuit.' Walker testified he had 'legal right and authority' (adding 'authority') through Precision to transfer. Walker, Seymour, and Ladner transferred 'the subject assets/property of Precision to Favre' (emphasizing Precision's ownership). Same core allegations: Shepherd wholly failed to protect Pohl; malfeasance was either negligent or intentional. |
| 99 | 12 12 | Prayer for Relief | Same prayer: Pohl takes nothing; Kassab recovers actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief against Plaintiffs and/or Third-Party Defendants. |
| 100 | 13 13 | Introduction / Incorporation of Favre Arguments | Kassab files this supplement to incorporate paragraphs 35-42 and exhibits from Favre/Precision's Motion to Dismiss. The incorporated arguments purportedly show that Pohl's claims were filed far beyond the statute of limitations. Argues not only a preponderance but a 'plethora of evidence' establishing the limitations defense under TCPA § 27.005(d). |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE filing_sections (
section_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
heading TEXT,
summary TEXT
);