filing_id,date,doc_type,party,description,doc_type_detail,procedural_posture,chain,outcome,phase,filename,relief_requested,full_text 3,2018-10-15,AFF,Pohl,Pohl’s affidavit in support of claims,"Affidavit of Michael Pohl filed as Exhibit 24, sworn June 19, 2018 in Montgomery County, Texas, in response to Kassab's State Bar grievance (File No. 201801825), providing Pohl's version of facts regarding his relationship with PR Consultants and denying barratry allegations","Sworn affidavit prepared by Pohl in the State Bar of Texas grievance proceeding (No. 201801825, Kassab as Complainant, Pohl as Respondent), later filed in the Pohl v. Kassab litigation as Exhibit 24 in connection with TCPA proceedings. Sworn June 19, 2018.",TCPA-1,N/A,Phase 1,2018-10-15_AFF_Pohl-Affidavit_FILED.pdf,,"EXHIBIT 24 Ne oe SS Iw se & @ Ke) & & © 2G S S& ¢ NO. 201801825 LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, § STATE BAR OF TEXAS Complainant. § § MIKE A. POHL, § Respondent. § GRIEVANCE : COMPLAINT NS AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL POHL G Rey THE STATE OF TEXAS § ~S COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY § ; & BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared ) Michael Pohl, who upon being duly sworn, deposes says: SN 1. My name is Michael Pohl. I am eighteen years old and am fully capable of making this affidavit. I have pergonal knowledge of the facts addressed SN herein except as otherwise specifically eo and they are true and correct. 2. Iam a lawyer. My law Geta was at all times material to the allegations herein called the Law Office, ‘Gf Michael A. Pohl (sometimes referred to as eS “LOMAP”). & 3. I was introduced to Scott Walker (“Walker”) and Robbie Maxwell, the © | principals of Maxwell W alker Consulting Group, LLC (“Maxwell-Walker”), as well as Terry Robinsoi, and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) in April 2012. I was introduced SS to Kirk Lady Laine’ approximately six to eight weeks later. These parties all held theiasdlves out to me as professional, experienced marketing consultants who had prior experience providing marketing and client-relations services on behalf of lawyers and law firms generally and in connection with claims asserted against British Petroleum arising from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (“BP claims”) in particular. Robinson’s father-in-law, who Pohl was informed by Walker, Robinson and Seymour was a prominent local attorney who advised their group, met with Pohl on one occasion to discuss the services to be provided. 4. I initially contracted with Maxwell-Walker for it to prove exclusive © public-relations and client-liaison services in connection with existing and potential BP claims by signing what was represented by Walker tobe Maxwell-Walker’s customary services agreement. I was informed that Magiwell-Walker had retained Mississippi attorneys to advise it and confirm that its agreement with me as well as the public relations and marketing services it was aiticipated to provide under the agreement were in compliance with Missiasipp law 5. Thereafter, Walker, Seymour Ladner (and/or their respective companies) and I entered into additichal torme for specifically identified services, including a Public Relations Conlin Agreement and subsequent agreements made subject to the terms of the Public Relations Consulting Agreement. 6. Ladner andlor is companies) joined Walker and Seymour (and/or their companies) on duly 15 2012, when Terry Robinson withdrew. The remaining group of Walker, Seymour and Ladner are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the Public Relatofé Consultants or “PR Consultants.” 7. Yves informed by the PR Consultants that their independent attorney or attorneys had reviewed and approved each of the contracts I signed with them. In fact, the PR Consultants and/or their independent attorneys prepared or redrafted several subsequent “Retention of Services Agreement[s]” and “Operating Agreement(s]” such as those attached to the Complaint! filed herein. I maintained frequent communication with the PR Consultants and often travelled to Mississippi to meet with them at the satellite law office I had leased there, which was used by the PR Consultants and staff in connection with the PR Consultants’ services under © their agreement with Pohl as the operations expanded. Th PR Consultants designated Walker as their business manager, spokesperscin and administrator. More specifically, Walker was assigned to lead their communications with third parties and handle all financial matters for theitGonsulting/public relations business. Walker was also in charge of the hiring-énd day-to-day supervision of the staff, although Ladner undertook all or most ofthe staff training in connection with the services rendered by the PR Consultaits in connection with the BP claims. The PR Consultants were solely responsible for hiring, paying, tax withholding and supervising all employees and contactor hired by them for purposes of providing services under their agreements with me, and retained sole and exclusive control of such employees and contain 8. The PR. Consultants represented that, in addition to their public relations services, they were competent to handle client liaison services and claims management ith respect to clients who retained me and Jimmy Williamson to investigate“ and potentially prosecute their BP claims. This included initial interviews and document aggregation to determine whether the clients/potential clients even met the minimum requirements for filing a claim with the Court Supervised Settlement Program administrator. The PR Consultants undertook to ' See Complaint, Exs. 32, 34. provide those services in connection with the BP claims through their jointly owned company, Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”), which succeeded Maxwell- Walker in January 2013. 9. With respect to those services, the PR Consultants represented to me 4 that they would be, and were, providing their marketing and client-relations services in connection with the BP litigation exclusively. #0ime and that they understood that their work and communications with clint potential clients and me related to matters of pending and anticipated litigation, was confidential and was not to be disclosed to third parties without iy express consent. I relied upon those assurances in retaining and continuing 0 ia the PR Consultants’ services. 10. I have reviewed the Afidagiis of Scott Walker, Steve Seymour and Kirk Ladner attached to the grievance bomplaint (the “Complaint”) filed against me by Lance Kassab (“Kassab”), oa as the May 25, 2012 Public Relations Consulting Agreement and ‘the May 25, 2012 Operating Agreement between LOMAP, Maxwell & Walker Diamond Consulting and Robinson Holdings, LLC (hereinafter, jointly, te May 25, 2012 Contract”); and the July 15, 2012 Operating Agreement between LOMAP, Ladner, Walker and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) (hereinafter, tJ 15, 2012 Contract”), attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 3-1, 3-2 and 2 respectively, and sometimes collectively referred to as the parties “agreement.” 11. The agreement was, as expressed in the writings, that I would pay the PR Consultants a retainer as well as hourly fees and expenses so long as “such hourly fees, retainer and expenses shall not exceed twenty-one percent (21%) of LOMAP’s forty percent (40%) interest in the British Petroleum representation agreement between Jimmy Williamson, P.C. and LOMAP.” 12. The assertions in the Complaint? that the agreement with the PR © Consultants was a “barratry agreement” and that I agreed to pay the PR Consultants any percentage of the attorney's fees I was toneceive is not true. I made no such agreement on May 9, 2012, May 25, 2012, July 15, 2012 or at any other time. The agreement between the parties provided, as expressed in the writings, that I would pay a specified retainer as wel as hourly fees and expenses so long as “such hourly fees, retainer and expenses shall not exceed twenty-one percent (21%) of LOMAP’s forty percent (40) interest in the British Petroleum representation agreement between sieny Williamson, P.C. and LOMAP.” 13. Accordingly, the sertion in the Complaint? that I ever agreed to pay any percentage of my attorndy’'s fees to the PR Consultants are not true. The May 25, 2012 and July 15, aon Contracts accurately reflect the agreement orally discussed and understood by all of the parties before their execution. The agreement required that the oer Consultants “shall keep accurate daily time records of all efforts expendédon behalf of LOMAP.” The %-of-attorney’s-fees clause was simply to impose @ “cap on amounts that may be due under the other terms of the agreement, not an independent promise to pay any percentage of the attorney’s fees earned by LOMAP on the subject claims. This was orally discussed and understood 2 See Complaint, p. 5. 3 See Complaint, p. 6. by the parties before the May 25, 2012 and July 15, 2012 Contracts were executed. I never agreed to simply pay a percentage of attorney’s fees to the PR Consultants and the May 25, 2012 and July 15, 2012 Contracts were intended to be enforced as written. NS © 14. Pursuant to their contractual obligations, on more tha one occasion I NN reminded the PR Consultants to keep accurate daily time redords of their services rendered in connection with the BP cases as they had agreed (as reflected in the May 25, 2012 Contract and the July 15, 2012 Contr After PR Consultants submitted invoices that I believed were unreasonable, I requested that the PR Consultants provide me with their daily time records Instead, the PR Consultants filed suit against me in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (the “Federal Court Lawsuit), in which I counterclaimed against the PR Consultants for numerous instant fraud and misrepresentation that are further addressed below. Notably, in fhe claims the PR Consultants asserted against me in the Federal Court Law the alleged that the agreement with me required them to be paid on an howlirrat basis and specifically denied that they were ever promised or otherwise entitled to any percentage of my attorney's fees. Exhibit 1-A. 15. 1 other instances pertaining to non-BP accident claims (sometimes referred bo “rollover cases”), the PR Consultants also demanded a specific hourly rate. The specific rate eventually charged by the PR Consultants was, in my opinion, unreasonably high but I nevertheless agreed to it in return for the PR Consultants’ agreement that the maximum amount I might owe them would be capped pursuant to the specified percentage-of-attorney’s-fees language used in the agreement. In this manner, I would limit my maximum contractual liability to the PR Consultants notwithstanding that they wanted to charge what I considered to be an unreasonable specified hourly rate. For example, I would have never agreed to | | ew an hourly rate of $1,500, which I considered to be excessive( without the PR Consultants’ agreement that the maximum amount I mien Ge them would be capped pursuant to the percentage-of-attomney’s-fees"" language that the PR Consultants had agreed to in writing. & 16. Further with respect to the terme agreoment and services to be provided under the May 25, 2012 Contract and the July 15, 2012 Contract, I was informed by the PR Consultants that they. wanted to confer with their attorneys before finalizing and executing the Gereement documentation. We specifically discussed that the inclusion of the Seed maximum-price provisions was essential to me in agreeing to either a fbaeonabl rate” formula or a specified contract rate. The PR Consultants saben confirmed to me that they had conferred with their Mississippi storeys, who had advised that the terms of the agreement and anticipated serviggs thereunder were lawful, and executed the agreement accordingly ro 17. Neverthees, the services rendered by the PR Consultants under the May 25, 2012 Contract and the July 15, 2012 Contract were substandard in many respects. Among other things, the PR Consultants improperly vetted potential claims for supporting, or disqualifying, information, improperly or inadequately trained employees and contract staff retained by the PR Consultants to perform services rendered under the PR Consultants’ contracts with me, and improperly or inadequately supervised employees and contract staff retained by the PR 5 Consultants to perform services rendered under the PR Consultants’ coniracts with me. The PR Consultants, who were primarily supposed to be whtng information booths at various public events (such as boat shows, local festivals, etc.) and answering follow-up telephone calls from interested perso had specifically touted to me their familiarity with Mississippi rules regafing the marketing of legal services on behalf of lawyers and law firms as elt as their access to counsel in neighboring jurisdictions to advise with regard to any activities there. That is, before I entered into any contracts witb PR Consultants, it was specifically discussed, and the PR Consultant * asctically agreed, that they were to comply with all applicable rules in that regaid and to supervise all hired staff accordingly. 18. However, based @n later admissions made by the PR Consultants in connection with the Federal Cour Lawsuit, it appears that that may not have been done in some instano§ although I relied upon the PR Consultants’ representations and was unaware that they were acting in violation of their agreement with me. I have since leS4, primarily through discovery in the Federal Court Lawsuit, that the PR Coitants also misrepresented to me and my staff information relating to claimants and potential claimants, disclosed confidential and _ proprietary information to third parties without authorization, and otherwise acted in a dishonest and disloyal manner toward me from the outset of our agreement, including entering into undisclosed arrangements to provide the same or similar services to my direct competitors, referring claimants and potential claimants to my direct competitors and evefi proposing the “sale” of all of my accumulated work product to third parties — all while being paid by me for what was represented to me to be their exclusive services and while I was being billed by the PR Consultants for (and paying) business expenses and overhead. & 19. It now appears that, from the outset of theif tolationship with me, the PR Consultants also immediately began violating thelr contracts with me by failing to keep accurate daily time records of efforts expended on my behalf as well as making materially false representations to regarding the nature of services performed and the nature of expenses ince, representations which I relied upon to my detriment by paying PR Constant amounts that were not owed and to which they were not entitled. This included the PR Consultants’ sending me falsified and inflated invoices‘and expense information. It was also later discovered that the PR Consultants had eytematialy overcharged me on all amounts I paid them under the publczlation agreement. As a result, I asserted claims against the PR Consultants in the Federal Court Lawsuit based on their multiple material breaches of thir express and implied agreements, and their otherwise fraudulent and bad ti onan towards me. 20. Moreover, the whole notion of alleged “barratry fees” was only concocted by the PR Consultants after they had been caught stealing from me. The term “barratry fees” was never used or mentioned by the PR Consultants at any time prior to the institution of my counterclaims against them in the Federal Court Lawsuit, and there is not a single contemporaneous record of any mention of alleged barratry fees or payments. Indeed, Complainant Kassab’s co-counsel, Tina Nicholson, as well as her former client Scott Favre (“Favre”), have both stated that the PR Consultants even admitted to them that they had been & Castine from me. Exhibit 1-B. The PR Consultants never disclosed to me that they were taking a “skim” from all funds invoiced to me as actual expenses‘@nd concealed the theft by misrepresenting to me the actual cost of the goodarand services for which they sought reimbursement. In reality, the PR Consultants were simply inflating the purported expense charges and keeping the exose above their actual cost. 21. In reliance on PR Consultants representations that the costs charged to me were real and legitimate, ato funds into accounts owned or controlled by the PR Consultants,"" These accounts were in the name of Maxwell- Walker and Precision and wie eontrolled by the PR Consultants. 22. Thus, from the inept of my relationship with PR Consultants, they consistently overstate the amount of all of the actual costs they charged me for, and then misappropriated, converted and/or stole the inflated amounts for their NS own use and benetit 24. The fraudulent nature of the PR Consultants’ activities was further established by the fact that bogus invoices produced in connection with the Federal Court lawsuit actually bear stamped “PAID” dates that are days or weeks before the _ invoices were even prepared, according to the other information contained thereon. Exhibit 1-C. 24. The PR Consultants also misappropriated, converted and/or stole money from me by misrepresentation by charging me as much as Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per week for what they described je rien expense itemizations that were actually sent to me as “miscellaneous marketing” expenses | a supposedly incurred under the terms of the contracts. Although I requested back-up receipts substantiating these purported expenses, (none were ever provided. I subsequently discovered that the “miscellaneous harketing” expenses were not real expenses at all; the PR Consultants wore. simply keeping the “miscellaneous marketing” money for themselves or otha using it for purposes that I had not authorized or agreed to. & 25. The PR Consultants taade multiple affirmative representations in communications to me and mi office staff regarding these fictitious expense charges from approximately March 201 through September 2013 until I confronted Walker and Walker cdmitted’ that the communications in which PR Consultants had characterized certain charges as “miscellaneous marketing” expenses were not truthful andar he had simply been keeping the money and/or using it for purposes that were not authorized under the contracts. When I demanded that the PR Consultants return the fraudulently induced payments, Walker told me that they longer had the funds. 26. As part of the business of Maxwell-Walker, and later Precision Marketing Group (now owned by Favre), the PR Consultants hired an unknown number of employees and subcontractors in connection with the services rendered in connection with the BP claims. The PR Consultants paid the individals it hired, © trained and supervised and to whom it issued IRS Form 1098s. None of those persons were employed by me. The PR Consultants represeiited to me that such persons would be and were properly trained and supervised regarding necessary and permissible marketing activities and restrichioné ¢ Gséxeon. But notwithstanding those representations, they have since disclosed in connection with the Federal Court Lawsuit that such training either ad not occur or was incompletely and/or negligently performed and the employees and contractors were not properly supervised by the PR Consultants, These deficiencies apparently continued notwithstanding my repeated ci to the PR Consultants to carefully train and supervise the employees and staff working on the BP matters. I relied on assurances from the PR Consltnt regarding their supposed training and supervision in continuing t utilize the PR Consultants’ services. However, I later came to learn that the PR Consultants were knowingly working against my interests purstiant to agreements they had entered into with other attorneys who I was in sre vompetition with. 27. Through discovery in the Federal Court Lawsuit, I learned that the PR Consultants diverted actual and potential BP claimants who had signed contracts with me to other persons and entities for the purpose of prosecuting their claims and thereby misappropriated the services I had contracted and paid for as well as my client contracts and existing and/or expected contractual relationships (including actual executed client contracts as well as my contract forms and related work product). According to the documents produced by the PR Consultants, © hundreds of claimants whose claims were investigated and docuimented by the PR Consultants — while I was paying them for full-time sorvives and all of their overhead ~ were surreptitiously referred by the PR Consultant to other attorneys pursuant to agreements the PR Consultants had entered into with them that had also not been disclosed to me. The documents prodiced by the PR Consultants in discovery reflect that, on some occasions, PR Consultants even sought to utilize the fact the I was paying overhead and expenies in an attempt to procure agreements for themselves with third parties té\ whom they intended to wrongfully divert existing and potential clients ia rated compensation rates based on the PR Consultants’ supposed assursption of responsibility for all overhead and expenses when, in fact, most of hon on were intended by the PR Consultants to be, and were being, entirely, bore by me. In other words, the PR Consultants were marketing their one services to other attorneys in return for a higher compensation rate based onthe fact that the other attorneys would not have to pay for expenses or overhead teens those expenses were being charged by the PR Consultants to me). 28. During the course of discovery in the Federal Court Case, it was also revealed that the PR Consultants undertook to convert, misappropriate for themselves and/or market to third parties claimant files and other information and materials that belong to me. Those items include original client contingency fee contracts between my clients and me (and to which PR Consultants are not parties), documentation of contact and personal information, claim information and supporting materials. These files were at one time maintained in approximately seventeen clear plastic file containers. Ladner admitted abseainding with those files from my satellite law office and, without my consent, them at his residence until they were later delivered, also without my content, to Scott Favre. The PR Consultants and Tina Nicholson also refused to rebum and converted to their own use four computers that I purchased for ny ofc and which the PR Consultants’ used while there performing services auider the May 25, 2012 and July 15, 2012 Contracts. Those computers held software and stored data that I had paid for, specialized legal forms (that hag eS, prepared in compliance with various state law after consultation with Tocal counsel in those jurisdictions), marketing information and other trade sere, my proprietary administrative client forms, various ue agreement forms prepared in accordance with the laws of various states, internal emails agther work product relating to the BP claims and other matters the PR Consufiants rendered services in connection with under the May 25, 2012 Contract aid the July 15, 2012 Contract. 29. This theft and unlawful disclosure was made even more egregious by the fact that, from the outset of their contractual relationship with me, the PR Consultants expressed their understanding of the confidential nature of the information based on their prior experience in providing litigation-related services to attorneys, a field in which PR Consultants held themselves out to me as experienced professionals. Nevertheless, without my consent, and although they were without legal title to the contracts, documents, computers, passwords or data stored thereon, PR Consultants purported to sell the contacts documents, computer, passwords and/or stored data to Scott Favre (even'aiter I had informed Favre that the materials had been stolen from me by mre PR Consultants), who it appears eventually sold those items and the information therein to Complainant Kassab. © 30. In the Spring of 2013, British Petroleum sued the administrator of the Court Supervised Settlement Program & lnpropeny administering the global settlement and, as a result, activity inconntto with the BP claims was halted. To the best of my recollection, after Apri 2013, Jimmy Williamson and I did not agree to represent any additional BE claimants who had requested our services as a result of the public relations ond markting services performed by the PR Consultants. 31. After the publi relations and claims administration services in connection with the BP claims had wound down, the PR Consultants offered their assistance in déonection with other legal matters I was handling. I have for many years proud claims arising from automobile and tire design and manufacturing defects and agreed to retain the PR Consultants’ services in connection with various faulty-ignition and “rollover cases.” However, I never instructed the PR Consultants to improperly solicit any persons and specifically deny that I engaged in any conspiracy with the PR Consultants or anyone else for the purpose of committing barratry. In February 2014, I made the decision to close my satellite law office in Mississippi. 32. Because of my years of experience in the field of désign and © manufacturing defect litigation, I have developed attorney contadés in many states who refer cases to me from time to time. In addition, I nae tomerous business | Cae contacts in Texas, Oklahoma and elsewhere related tepy ranching and horse breeding business who have from time to time reconunénded my services to their family members and acquaintances. It was tar not unusual for me to be contacted by a claimant from outside the State of Texas even though that is where I had maintained my practice for many years) 33. With respect to the family of Cynthia Shannon (referred to on page 14 of the Complaint), to the best of e knowledge, I believe I was contacted by an acquaintance or family meme of the decedent and may have requested Walker and/or Ladner to assist {connection with securing the vehicle, tires and other evidence related to tec Beident and may also have referred the family to Helping Hand Financing, ERC (which I have no ownership interest in) for the purpose of arranging nonifecourse loan against any potential recovery on the wrongful death claim. Howeres I did not refer anyone to Helping hand Group, LLC, which was a Mississippi business entity apparently formed by Walker and/or Ladner without my knowledge or assistance. I did not instruct or advise Walker, Ladner or The Helping Hands Group, LLC to improperly solicit the family of Cynthia Shannon, nor did I otherwise enter into any conspiracy with Walker, Ladner, The Helping Hands Group, LLC or anyone else to commit barratry in connection with any claims arising from Cynthia Shannon’s death. 34. I would add that it is also possible that the PR Consultants or other © persons may have contacted the family of Cynthia Shannon, or tthe Semily of Emily Zubalik (mentioned in connection with the letter from Richard Shenken on page 20 of the Complaint),4 using my name without my knowledge consent. In particular, two individuals who I had no contact with and never$ éuthorized to use my name or my firm name actually set up and operated a website using my name and my firm name. Those individuals were later sscovered to be Julia Porter and Monica Chaney, who it appears (from the statomnt of Jacqueline Taylor attached to the Complaint) may have been associated With the PR Consultants or their associates. 35. In fact, I had to ote Porter and Chaney several times and eventually sent them a ceaseland desist letter demanding that they stop using my name or my firm’s name in comecton with any website or otherwise. Exhibit 1-D. I later learned that, eboeh Porter and/or Chaney, certain individuals may have actually signed fog parcements or other claims-related documentation bearing my name and, agtin, demanded that Porter and Chaney inform any such persons that the use oy name was unauthorized. Exhibit 1-E. 4] have no specific recollection of ever instructing Ladner or anyone else to contact Michael Lucas or any member of Emily Zubalik’s family. The Power of Attorney (attached as Exhibit 39 to the Complaint) appears to be a form | have used but is not signed by me and, upon receipt of Mr. Shenken’s letter (attached as Exhibit 38 to the Complaint), I immediately disclaimed any interest in claims arising from the subject accident. See Exhibit 1-G. 36. On still another occasion, my firm was contacted by an individual named Christopher Forrest inquiring as to the status of his case. When we informed Mr. Forrest that we had no record of having represented him, he stated that he had been promised at least $30,000 if he signed certain documentation and forwarded to 4 me a document indicating that someone had presented him with a fee agreement Ni bearing my name in May of 2017, more than three years’ after I had stopped accepting BP claims and more than two years after the BP claims administrator had closed the application process. Exhibit 1-F. After reviewing the document he had forwarded, we inquired of Mr. Forrest who had povided it to him, but he stated that he did not want to get anyone in troubies refused to identify the individual that had given it to him. ~ 37. I further deny the attogaddon that I divided a fee between myself and a lawyer or lawyers who are not in ym without the client’s consent (as alleged on pages 26-27 of the Complaisit)- Fist the Complaint does not even identify any client whose fee was supose improperly divided. Second, the fee-agreement submitted by the Complainant in support of this allegation (Exhibit 43 to the Complaint) does pobappear to have been prepared or signed by me. Third, even if I had prepared’ signed Exhibit 483 or a substantively similar fee agreement, it would noe constiate the “division” of a fee without the client’s consent because Jimmy Williamson and I were both identified on the fee agreement and therefore would both have been knowingly retained by the client/potential client. 38. In this regard, Mr. Williamson and I did agree generally to share fees earned on our joint BP clients on a 60/40 percentage basis consistent with Texas law.5 Accordingly, we envisioned that the services and value contributed by each would approximate a 60 percent contribution by Williamson and a 40 percent © contribution by me. However, consistent with Texas law, when the circumstances occasionally varied from our estimate, or otherwise in fairness required a different proportion, the fee, if any, would be divided accordingly. [a yome instances, I did not receive any fee at all on a BP claim notwithstanding tat both Williamson and I had been retained by the client and I had contributed to the investigation and/or prosecution of the claim. I have no way of knowing what the circumstances were with respect to the client who supposedly retained me pursuant to the fee agreement attached as Exhibit ado the Complaint because all identifying information has been redacted ty hl Complains. However, I deny that I violated Texas Disciplinary Rule of Prffessional Conduct 1.04 with respect to that individual or any other client or potenti client. In connection with the BP claims and other matters made the basis 0 the Complaint, the fees and expense reimbursement I received reflected the actual value of my legal services and the actual expenses I had incurred 29. In this regard, I am familiar with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”) and have made it my practice to comply with them at all times. 5 See e.g. Exhibit 10 (J. Williamson depo., pp. 58-59). 40. Ideny that I violated Rules 1.04(((1), 1.04(H(2) or 1.04(g) in connection with any fees earned in connection with the BP claims and other matters made the basis of the Complaint. 41. I further deny that I violated Rules 1.15(a)(1) or 115 @ in connection with my withdrawal from or other termination of any reresention in connection with the BP claims and other matters made the basis of the Céinplaint 42. I further deny that I violated Rule 5.04(a) by sharing attorney’s fees with a non-lawyer in connection with the BP claims’ and other matters made the basis of the Complaint. © 43. I further deny that I violated Ral 7.01(a) with respect to my firm name or letterhead in connection with the BP claims and other matters made the & basis of the Complaint. & 44, I further deny that I violated Rules 7.03(b) or 7.03(d) by paying any non-lawyer to solicit or refer dhionts to me, except for reasonable public relations and marketing services reper in accordance with the Rules, in connection with the BP claims and ot ater made the basis of the Complaint. 45. I further deny that I violated Rules 7.06(a) or 7.06(b) by continuing employment &Siolation of the Rules in connection with the BP claims and other matters nde the basis of the Complaint. 46. I further deny that I violated Rules 8.04(a)(1), 8.04(a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(a)(4), 8.04(a)(9), 8.04(a)(12) or 8.04(b) by committing any crime or illegal act, engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, engaging in obstruction of justice, engaging in barratry or violating any other law relating to lawyers or the practice of law. 47. Ihave attempted in good faith to address all of the material allegations set forth in Mr. Kassab’s grievance complaint; however, to the extent. ani material NS allegation is not specifically addressed above it is denied. ae “GO XS FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. °@ ® Z) S SN ‘Si & oY ©) @ & cS IN O & © Ss fips SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on‘tiijs 19tii-day of Jing; 2018. lai eee gg es December dante | Commission Bxpines: LA Ao ADE Seinen. PCtidaNGlanServicecaig: 5 S ® ® S SN ~ v & © @ & cS IN =O & | © . Ss"