Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
7 rows where filing_id = 3
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
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
);