filing_id,date,doc_type,party,description,doc_type_detail,procedural_posture,chain,outcome,phase,filename,relief_requested,full_text
67,2024-02-02,RSP,Pohl,Objections to Kassab JNOV,"Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motions for New Trial and for JNOV, systematically opposing all 22 grounds for new trial and all JNOV arguments. Argues: all grounds are recycled rejected arguments; witness tampering allegations identical to rejected mistrial motion and based on unsworn statements of self-professed perjurer/extortionist; multiple charge objections waived at charge conference; jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks of trial evidence; Kassab fails to cite trial record; incorporates 15 prior filings by reference.","Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing both the Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV filed January 19, 2024. Pohl incorporates by reference 15 prior filings spanning 2021-2023. Notes Kassab has not filed a proposed order as required by court procedures.",POST-1,N/A,Phase 5,2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Objections-to-Kassab-JNOV_FILED.pdf,Denial of Kassab's Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV in their entirety,"2/2/2024 4:44 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 84110431
By: Bonnie Lugo
Filed: 2/2/2024 4:44 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiffs, §
V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS
§ e
LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l
KASSAB et al. § 
§ c
Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT
POHL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND
FOR JUDGMENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDsICT AND TO DISREGARD
JURY FINDINGS FILED BY THE KASSAsB DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michaerl A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond
in opposition to The Kassab Defendants’ Motion for New Trial (the “Motion for New Trial”) and
Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdlict and to Disregard Jury Findings (the “Motion
for JNOV”) filed by Defendants Lance ChMristopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.,
d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”).
I. INTRODUCTION
Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV repeat Kassab’s arguments that the
Court has previously considered and rejected. In these two motions, Kassab recycles arguments
rejected at summary judgment, 166(g) hearings, pre-trial hearings, directed verdict, and otherwise.
The Court’s judgcment and the jury verdict are supported by and consistent with ample evidence
presented at trial. But Kassab would have the Court throw out a jury verdict supported by nearly
two weeks’ worth of trial evidence. Because the issues that Kassab raises are without merit, the
Court should deny Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV.
II. STANDARDS
A. Motion for New Trial
“Jury trials are essential to our constitutionally provided method for resolving disputes,”
and “a jury’s decision is not to be tampered with lightly, regardless of whether it favors the plaintiff
or the defendant.” In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.Pl., 290 S.W.3d 204,
211 (Tex. 2009) (citing Tex. Const. art. I, § 15, art. V, § 10); see generally Hterbert v. Herbert, 754
S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. 1988) (“long-established precedents in this sstate demonstrate respect for
jury verdicts”). Thus, the “discretion Texas trial courts possess to overturn jury verdicts and grant
new trials,” though broad, “has its limits.” In re Columbia,e 290 S.W.3d at 210. “[T]he fact that
the right to jury trial is of such significance omas to be provided for in both the Federal and State
Constitutions counsels against courts setting aside jnury verdicts for less than specific, significant,
and proper reasons.” Id. at 210 n.3. A court’s rdiscretion in granting a new trial “should not, and
does not, permit a trial judge to substitute . . . her own views for that of the jury without a valid
basis.” Id. at 212. e
“[N]ew trials may be granfted to a party for sufficiency or weight of the evidence, when
damages are ‘manifestly’ tooy small or too large, and for ‘good cause.’” Id. at 210 (citing TEX. R.
CIV. P. 320, 326). Rul
e 320’s “good cause” standard “does not mean just any cause,” but rather a
“specific, significanat, and proper” cause. See id. at 210 n.3. As for challenges to the evidentiary
sufficiency of a fjury finding: A factual-sufficiency challenge can only prevail where a jury finding
“is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is manifestly unjust,
shocks the conscience, or clearly demonstrates bias.” In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002)
(citing Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986)).1 A legal-sufficiency challenge
1 With respect to an issue involving the clear and convincing evidence standard, a slightly different inquiry is
warranted. See Jang Won Cho v. Kun Sik Kim, 572 S.W.3d 783, 810 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.)
requires a party challenging a finding on which it did not bear the burden to “demonstrate that no
evidence supports the finding.” Four J’s Cmty. Living Ctr., Inc. v. Wagner, 630 S.W.3d 502, 513
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied) (emphasis added, citation omitted).
If the trial court grants a new trial, it cannot “simply parrot a pro forma tekmplate.”2 In re
Munsch, 614 S.W.3d 397, 400 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pelt.). Instead, a new
trial order must “provide an understandable, reasonably specific explancation of the trial court’s
reasons for setting aside the jury’s verdict” that “derive[s] the artsiculated reason[s] from the
particular facts and circumstances of the case at hand.” Id. (citsations omitted). The trial court’s
“stated reason for granting a new trial must [also] be a legally valid reason.” Id.
B. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
A court may render a judgment notwithstanding the verdict only if a directed verdict would
have been proper. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 301. “A
directed verdict is warranted when the evidence is
such that no other verdict can be rendered and the moving party is entitled, as a matter of law, to
judgment.” Zarate v. Rodriguez, 542e S.W.3d 26, 35 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet.
denied) (citation omitted). Put anfother way, judgment notwithstanding the verdict “is proper when
the evidence is conclusive aynd one party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law, or when a legal
principle precludes recCovery.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Barrow-Shaver Res. Co. v. Carrizo
Oil & Gas, Inc., 5a90 S.W.3d 471, 480 (Tex. 2019) (“Judgment . . . against a jury verdict is
proper . . . only fwhen the law does not allow reasonable jurors to decide otherwise.”).
(“factual sufficiency of the evidence under a clear and convincing standard requires us to determine based on the
record whether the fact finder reasonably could form a firm conviction or belief that the allegations were proven.”).
2 Kassab has not yet filed a proposed order as required by the Court’s procedures. The Court cannot adopt a pro forma
proposed order to grant a new trial. There are minimum constitutional requirements articulated by the Texas Supreme
Court. See In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 748-49 (Tex. 2013) (“trial court must explain with
reasonable specificity why it . . . circumvented a critical constitutional right” and “granted a new trial”); In re United
Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685, 688–89 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding) (“trial court abuses its discretion if its new-
trial order provides no more than a pro forma template rather than the trial judge’s analysis”); see also In re Bent, 487
S.W.3d 170, 173 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Columbia, 290 S.W.3d at 212–13.
III. POHL’S INCORPORATION OF PRIOR BRIEFING
Because Kassab’s arguments are largely recycled arguments previously rejected by this
Court and the 189th District Court, Pohl incorporates fully by reference his prior briefing—both
the arguments and the attached exhibits—on these issues. This includes the followking items:
• Pohl’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims,l filed Dec. 7, 2021.
• Pohl’s Reply in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgtment on Defendants’
Counterclaims, filed Feb. 4, 2022.
• Pohl’s Objection to Kassab’s Motion to Designate Responsisble Third Parties, filed May
31, 2022. D
• Pohl’s Response in Opposition to the Traditional Moti s ons for Summary Judgment Filed
by the Kassab Defendants and the Nicholson Defendeants & Exhibits, filed Sept. 12, 2022.
• Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to the Kassarb Defendants’ Three New Motions to
Compel, filed Sept. 27, 2022.
• Pohl’s Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testnim  ony of Defendants’ Expert Witnesses, filed
Nov. 30, 2022 y
• Pohl’s Objection to Kassab’s Suppale r mental Motion to Designate Responsible Third
Parties, filed Nov. 30, 2022. M
• Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion on fBarratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses
Asserted by the Kassab Defendants, filed Nov. 30, 2022.
• Pohl’s Response in Opposit c ion to the Amended Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by
the Kassab Defendants &f Exhibits, filed March 29, 2023.
• Pohl’s Letter responding to arguments raised in Kassab’s April 13, 2023 letter, filed April
18, 2023. p
• Pohl’s Rule 10C4(c) Motion Disputing the Admissibility of Lance Kassab’s Testimony as
an Expert Witnesses, filed Aug. 4, 2023.
• Pohl’s Letiter Brief Concerning Barratry and Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion, filed Aug. 15,
2023. i
• Pohl’s Reply in Support of His Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, filed Sept. 18, 2023.
• Pohl’s Reply to Kassab’s Post-Hearing Letter on Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Judgment,
filed Sept. 22, 2023.
• Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Emergency Motion for Mistrial & Exhibits, filed Dec. 21,
2023.
IV. DISCUSSION
Many of the issues presented in Kassab’s motions have been previously argued by Kassab
and rejected by the Court with a ruling in Pohl’s favor. The same result is proper here, and the
Court should deny Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV. Manyk issues Kassab
raises were waived or are boilerplate sufficiency objections without citationsl to the trial record.
But Kassab has not grappled with the evidence in the trial record—nor dcoes he attach the record
as support. It is apparent that Kassab gives little weight to the evidensce Pohl introduced at trial—
Kassab has taken positions throughout the lawsuit that require him to reject Pohl’s testimony and
evidence—but the verdict demonstrates the jury did accept Pohl’s evidence. Kassab has not
carried his burden to demonstrate error in the judgment or verdict, much less any error that would
warrant a new trial or setting aside the judgment.
A. Kassab’s alleged new evidence dida not warrant a mistrial, and it does not warrant
a new trial (Motion for New TriMal Issue #1).
The Court should reject Kassabo’s lead argument for a new trial—Kassab’s allegations of
witness tampering—because it prescents the same arguments and evidence that the Court recently
considered and found did not warrant a mistrial. Kassab presents no new material information,
evidence, or argument thapt warrants reconsideration. The Court correctly ruled that Kassab’s
arguments—which rely on untrue statements—did not justify setting aside the jury’s verdict.
Those same argumcents do not warrant setting aside the Court’s judgment based on that verdict.
Kassaob’s first argument for a new trial is that he claims there is newly discovered evidence
of witness tampering that warrants a new trial. See Motion for New Trial at 4–9. He contends that
“[a]lthough Walker and Ladner testified one way in the Mississippi litigation they brought against
Pohl, when they were deposed in this case they reversed course on seminal issues of barratry and
ownership of Pohl’s purported trade secrets.” Id. at 6. This is the same rejected argument Kassab
made for a mistrial. Compare id. at 4–9 & exhibits 1–4, with Kassab’s Emergency Motion for
Mistrial at 1–7 & exhibits 1–4, filed Dec. 13, 2023.
Pohl responded to Kassab’s Emergency Motion for Mistrial and explained how Kassab’s
arguments were misleading. See generally Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Emergekncy Motion for
Mistrial, filed Dec. 21, 2023. Despite Pohl pointing out that it is demonstrablyl untrue that Walker
and Ladner changed their testimony on the issues Kassab complains abocut “in this case,” Kassab
continues to push this false narrative. See id. at 7–10 (explaining how sKassab withheld information
from the Court about Walker and Ladner giving testimony ins 2018 consistent with their 2022
depositions in this case); Motion for New Trial at 6–7 (demonstrating Kassab continues to wrongly
suggest that a change occurred with Walker and Ladner’s testimony “in this case”).
While Pohl relies on his prior arguments and evidence, the following summarizes why the
Court should reject Kassab’s argument. Fiarst, Kassab suggests that Pohl agreed to share a
judgment with Walker and Ladner in exchange for them sitting for depositions and changing
deposition testimony on two topics ine this case. But Kassab knows this is not true. Pohl did not
convince Walker or Ladner to sitf for depositions—Kassab, not Pohl, subpoenaed their testimony.
And Pohl did not need to inyfluence Walker or Ladner to “change” their testimony in this case.
Kassab took their depoCsitions in a different case in 2018—four years before their depositions in
this case. Kassab does not discuss, let alone grapple with, the fact that Walker gave testimony in
2018 on the twfof topics at issue that is consistent with his testimony in this case.
SeUcond, even if Walker changed his testimony on the relevant topics for this case—which
is not true—Kassab has not provided evidence to justify granting a new trial. Kassab’s argument
hinges on the truthfulness of vague, unsworn statements of Scott Walker, a self-professed perjurer
and an extortionist. Walker first unsuccessfully tried to extort Pohl for a share of the eventual
judgment in this case, but Pohl refused to be extorted. Walker then approached Kassab and asked
Kassab repeatedly to pay him to help Kassab avoid paying any judgment to Pohl. Kassab does not
mention this fact in his motion—nor did he disclose it to the Court when requesting a mistrial.
In any event, Kassab cannot show that he is entitled to a new trial based solkely on unsworn
statements of a self-professed perjurer who pitched a story as part of an offerl to sell Kassab his
testimony to help undermine any judgment in this case. Kassab failed tco establish facts that the
Court can rely on to grant a new trial and overturn the jury’s considersed verdict in this case.
B. The jury properly found that Pohl owned the trades secrets (Motion for New Trial
Issue #2 and Motion for JNOV Issue #1). s
After reviewing the evidence and testimony prersented at trial, the jury found that (1)
“[a]ttorney client fee contracts between Pohl and his clients” and (2) “[a]ny list of the identities
and contact information of Pohl’s actual, potentlial or rejected clients” constituted Pohl’s trade
secrets.3 The jury heard evidence supportinMg its finding that Pohl owned the relevant information,
that it had economic value to Pohl as ao compilation, that it was kept secret, and that Pohl took
reasonable steps to safeguard its seccrecy. There is no basis that can justify the Court setting aside
the jury’s findings on this issue after a legal or factual review.
As noted above, for a factual sufficiency challenge to prevail, the Court must find that the
jury finding “is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is manifestly
unjust, shocks thec conscience, or clearly demonstrates bias.” In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex.
2002). That standard is not met here, where the jury finding is based on the jury accepting the
testimony of witnesses, weighing the documentary evidence, and finding in Pohl’s favor. Nor has
Kassab shown as a matter of law that Pohl does not own the trade secrets as required to meet the
JNOV standard.
3 See Jury Verdict, Question 1(a)–(b), attached as Exhibit A.
Kassab continues to try and conflate the issues by suggesting that “Pohl cannot own a trade
secret in attorney-client contracts because they are owned by the client.” Motion for New Trial at
9; Motion for JNOV at 5–6. While a client may have a right to a copy of the particular attorney–
client contract the client is a party to, the lawyer also has an ownership right in eakch contract and
to the collection of his contracts.4 Unlike work product, which is generated onl behalf of a client,
an attorney does not act as the agent of a client when a fee contract is drafcted or before it is signed.
A client certainly does not own a collection of attorney–client cosntracts or a compilation of
information based on multiple attorney–client contracts. Pohl ansd other witnesses provided direct,
on-point testimony on this specific issue.
Kassab also ignores Pohl’s testimony about his ownership of the contracts, any lists, and
the information more generally. He instead focuses on an allegation that Pohl’s office manager
“testified that she did not consider the attornaey-client contracts trade secrets.” Motion for New
Trial at 10. But her opinion on what constitutes trade secrets is not relevant. Kassab fails to
mention that Pohl’s office manager aelso gave testimony showing that Pohl did own the contracts
and any list of information comfpiled from those contracts. The jury had ample evidence to
conclude Pohl owned the ryelevant trade secrets, including because Pohl’s name was on the
contracts, and Pohl hadC the right to any list made by those working for him that was compiled from
the information contained in those contracts.
The jurfyf also saw evidence that Pohl took reasonable steps to keep his client information
confidentUial and that the compilation of this information had value beyond simply the sum of its
components (what Kassab refers to as a “competitive advantage”). The jury heard testimony about
how client information was kept in a locked office above a bank with security. The jury heard
4 Cf. Texas Ethics Opinion No. 670 (March 2018) (discussing how an attorney can use copies of former client
documents as “forms” in a new firm provided he keeps confidential information confidential).
about how those who worked for Pohl understood that client information had to be kept secret.
The jury heard testimony about the value of knowing the identities of persons who may participate
in mass tort litigation. The jury also heard opinion testimony about how, by the very nature of the
work, persons working for lawyers understand they must safeguard the secrecy kof information,
especially client information. l
Kassab continues to contend that Pohl’s trade secrets were “gcenerally known to third
parties.” Motion for New Trial at 12. But there was a lack of evsidence showing this at trial.
Instead, the jury saw evidence that Kassab was willing to pay osver six figures to get access to the
attorney–client contracts (and lists of contact information based on those contracts). The jury was
free to reject Kassab’s unsupported assertion that Pohl’s client list—which would have included
contact information—was publicly available when Kassab failed to provide evidence
demonstrating this claim. Kassab’s actionas were inconsistent with his assertion that this
information was publicly available. 
The record at trial demonstratees that there is factually sufficient evidence to show that the
attorney–client contracts and listsf of identities and contact information of Pohl’s clients constituted
Pohl’s trade secrets. Kassaby’s conclusory assertions about what he thinks the evidence showed do
not carry his burden toC establish that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The jury’s
finding that Pohl owned the relevant trade secrets is legally proper and supported by testimony and
documentary efvfidence. The jury’s finding in favor of Pohl on this issue—made after the jury
weighed Uthe evidence—should not be disturbed.
C. Kassab waived any objection to Question #2 (Motion for New Trial Issue #3).
For the first time, Kassab complains in his Motion for New Trial that the Court erred in
submitting Question #2 to the jury. This question was properly included because it was supported
by evidence introduced at trial, and Kassab was on notice of the nature of Pohl’s claims against
Kassab. But the Court does not need to reach those issues. Kassab failed to object to Question #2
at the charge conference and thus failed to preserve any objection to this jury question.
It is blackletter law that a party must articulate its objections to the Court before the Court
reads the jury charge to the jury to preserve any objection. See TEX. R. CIVk. P. 274 (“Any
complaint as to a question, definition, or instruction, on account of any defectl, omission, or fault
in pleading, is waived unless specifically included in the objections.”). c A party cannot raise an
objection to a jury question for the first time as part of a motion fors a new trial. See Mitchell v.
Bank of Am., N.A., 156 S.W.3d 622, 628 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2s004, pet. denied) (“Objections to
the court’s charge in a motion for a new trial are untimely and preserve nothing for review.”); see
also Zermeno v. Garcia, No. 14-17-00843-CV, 2019 WL 2063090, at *3 n.5 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] May 9, 2019, pet. denied).
In Kassab’s Motion for New Trial, hae contends that the Court erred in submitting Jury
Question #2. See Motion for New Trial at 12–14. However, Kassab did not object to this question
at the charge conference.5 Thus, Kasesab cannot raise objections to this jury question for the first
time in his Motion for New Trial.f
While Kassab waivedy any objections he may have had, Kassab is also wrong on the merits
of this issue. A signifCicant issue at trial was whether Kassab improperly obtained Pohl’s trade
secrets from Favre and Precision. Pohl put on evidence showing that Precision, as a company that
provided servicfefs to a lawyer, had a duty of secrecy and that Kassab should have known that Favre
and PreciUsion had a duty to keep Pohl’s trade secrets confidential. But despite knowing that before
obtaining the information, Kassab helped induce a breach of confidentiality by wrongfully
5 Jury Charge Conference Transcript at 6–7 (showing the Court asked if Kassab had any objections to Question #2,
and Kassab’s counsel stated: “Not to Number 2.”), attached as Exhibit B.
10
purchasing Pohl’s trade secrets. Thus, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the
broad-form submission of Question #2 to the jury.
D. There is factually sufficient evidence for the jury’s finding that Kassab engaged in
misappropriation (Motion for New Trial Issue #4 and Motion for JNOV Issue #2).
The jury found that Kassab misappropriated Pohl’s trade secrets after seering and hearing
ample evidence that Kassab willfully and knowingly acquired those trade secrets from persons
Kassab knew were violating an obligation to keep the trade secrets conrfiidential. Kassab ignores
the evidence in favor of the jury’s findings and improperly tries toD engage in burden-shifting after
the fact. The Court should reject this previously disputed issuse.
Kassab’s main argument is that the jury’s findring of 0% liability for Precision on
misappropriation is inconsistent with a finding that he misappropriated Pohl’s trade secrets. See
Motion for New Trial at 14–16; Motion for JNOVl at 10–12. As a threshold matter, Kassab waived
his right to object based on any alleged inMconsistency in the jury’s verdict by not asserting any
objections before the Court dismissed tohe jury. See Bryan v. Papalia, 542 S.W.3d 676, 692–93
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2c017, rev. granted, judgm’t vacated w.r.m.). But even if Kassab
had not waived the issue, Kassab’s theory fails because it was Kassab’s, not Pohl’s, burden to
introduce evidence showing Precision engaged in misappropriation.
There is nothing inconsistent about the jury finding that Precision did not misappropriate
the information acnd that Kassab did. The jury could have found that Precision obtained the
information lawfully because Precision obtained the information at the request of, while working
for, and while being paid by Pohl. The jury also could have based its misappropriation finding on
Kassab’s post-acquisition “use” or “disclosure” of the trade secrets. Regardless, Kassab is the
party that sought to designate Precision as a responsible third party. Kassab cites no authority for
the theory that his failure to persuade the jury that Precision engaged in misappropriation can be
11
used to undermine a jury finding on a separate issue where Pohl did carry the burden of proof. To
find otherwise would flip the incentives in the case. Kassab would have no incentive to introduce
any evidence to support a finding of liability against a party he designated as a responsible third
party. Instead, it would create a conflicting incentive for Pohl to introduce evideknce potentially
undermining his case to prove that some responsibility was born by someone lother than Kassab.
This makes no sense, and the Court should reject Kassab’s unsupported tcheory.
Kassab’s theory of factual insufficiency (and no evidence) relsies on ignoring the evidence
at trial. He contends that there is insufficient (or no) evidence she was aware the information had
been acquired by improper means or from someone who had acquired it improperly. See Motion
for New Trial at 16; Motion for JNOV at 11. But Kassab apparently forgets that this was a major
issue at trial. On their face, the documents that Kassab purchased were not the sort of documents
that can be properly purchased from a non-laawyer. Pohl introduced expert opinion testimony on
what a lawyer should know about the confidentiality of materials containing information about
another lawyer’s clients. Kassab proevided testimony on cross-examination on this issue that the
jury could have found to be nofn-credible or to support an inference that Kassab acted with
awareness of the proper ownyer of Pohl’s trade secrets when Kassab purchased them.
There was testaCmentary and documentary evidence before the jury supporting their finding
that Kassab had misappropriated Pohl’s trade secrets. Kassab’s argument that this finding was
supported by inf fsufficient or no evidence is contrary to the trial record. The Court should reject
Kassab’sU arguments for a new trial and to set aside the judgment.
E. Kassab did not sufficiently preserve his objection to Question #3 (Motion for New
Trial Issue #5).
Kassab failed to timely notify the Court of his objection to Question #3 contained in his
Motion for New Trial. Pohl opposed the inclusion of Question #3. The Court chose to include
12
this question because Kassab wanted to make arguments about barratry, and he insisted on
including a jury question about alleged wrongful conduct by Pohl. Kassab now objects, saying
this question is not properly tied to other parts of the charge. But he waived this issue by failing
to timely make this objection and alert the Court of this alleged issue. k
Kassab argues that Question #3 was improper “because it was not tied lto any other part of
the charge.” Motion for New Trial at 17. However, Kassab did not raisce this issue at the charge
conference.6 Instead, Kassab presented the Court with a broasder, non-relevant question
concerning barratry.7 The Court rightfully rejected Kassab’s srequest to use that question. But
more importantly, Kassab failed to object to Question #3 on the basis that it was not tied to another
part of the charge. His failure to object on this ground
waived the issue. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 274
(“Any complaint as to a question, definition, or instruction, on account of any defect, omission, or
fault in pleading, is waived unless specificallya included in the objections.”); see also Mitchell, 156
S.W.3d at 628. 
F. The Court correctly rejecteed Kassab’s proportionate responsibility question
(Motion for New Trial Issue #6).
Kassab claims the Court erred by not submitting Kassab’s proportionate responsibility
question without citing a single legal authority to support his argument. See Motion for New Trial
at 17–18. Kassab was obligated to tender a legally proper jury question to preserve any objection.
But Kassab’s reqcuested jury question is contrary to the terms of the proportionate responsibility
statute. Further, Kassab’s proposed question was improper because it included individuals as
potentially responsible parties despite Kassab’s failure to introduce relevant evidence of their fault
at trial to support their inclusion on the jury question.
6 Jury Charge Conference Transcript at 6–7, Ex. B.
7 See id.; see also Motion for New Trial Ex. 6 (containing Kassab’s proposed alternative to Question #3).
13
Unlike, for example, negligence—where a plaintiff can negligently contribute to his or her
injury—Pohl could not have misappropriated his trade secrets. Thus, Pohl could not have violated
an “applicable legal standard” that contributed to causing the harm for which recovery of damages
is sought.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(4). As a result, the Court pkroperly rejected
Kassab’s proportionate responsibility question, which included a line for Pohl. lKassab’s proposed
question was also improper because it included lines for Walker, Seymocur, and Ladner despite a
lack of evidence regarding their fault at trial. It also would have besen improperly duplicative to
include those individuals alongside Precision in the question. s 
Because Kassab had the burden to submit a legally proper alternative question on the issue
of proportionate responsibility, his failure to tender a legally proper question at the charge
conference waived this issue. It was not error for the Court to reject the improper question Kassab
presented to the Court at the charge conferencae.
G. The statute of limitations did not run against Kassab before his wrongful conduct
occurred (Motion for New Trial Issues #7–8 and Motion for JNOV Issue #3).
Kassab makes two types ofc arguments concerning limitations. First, he argues that the
Court erred by asking the jury about Kassab’s misappropriation of Pohl’s trade secrets rather than
some alleged misappropriation by another party. See Motion for New Trial at 18. Second, and
relatedly, he argues that Pohl’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets accrued prior to Kassab
engaging in any cwrongful conduct. See id. at 21–22; Motion for JNOV at 13–15. The Court
should reject both of these arguments because Pohl’s claims against Kassab could not accrue prior
to Kassab engaging in the wrongful conduct that gave rise to Pohl’s claims.
Kassab relies on alleged conduct by third parties to argue that Pohl’s claims against Kassab
accrued before Kassab engaged in wrongful conduct that gave rise to Pohl’s claims. Such a reverse
discovery rule—operating to cause the limitations period to run before Pohl could have brought
14
suit—makes no sense. It is Kassab’s conduct that is relevant for determining when Pohl’s claims
accrued. Here, Pohl’s claims accrued no earlier than November 2016, when the evidence shows
that Kassab knowingly purchased and acquired possession of Pohl’s confidential information from
a third party that Kassab knew had worked for Pohl. k
While a Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”) claim may not ble a continuing tort,
that does not mean that different people cannot commit separate acts ocf misappropriation. For
example, Kassab cites Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int’l, LLC, s565 S.W.3d 12 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2016), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 580 S.Ws.3d 136 (Tex. 2019), to argue that
Pohl’s claim against Kassab accrued before Kassab purchased Pohl’s trade secrets. But Kassab
misunderstands this case. In Agar, a third party allegedly sold Agar’s trade secrets on multiple
occasions. See Agar, 565 S.W.3d at 19–20. Invoking both the continuing tort doctrine and the
discovery rule, Agar argued that limitations foar its conspiracy claim did not begin to run until the
last sale of its trade secrets (the last overt act) by that third party occurred. See id. The court
rejected that argument for multiple reeasons, including that the misappropriation of Agar’s trade
secrets was not a continuing tortf that reset upon each subsequent sale of the trade secrets by the
third party. See id. at 21. y
Agar stands forC the proposition that, for a specific party, the limitations period starts to run
when that party first misappropriated the trade secret, not when it last used the misappropriated
trade secret. Sfefe Agar, 565 S.W.3d at 21. Pohl filed suit less than two years after Kassab first
misapproUpriated Pohl’s trade secrets. Agar does not support Kassab’s argument that a third party’s
alleged prior misappropriation can start the limitations period before a separate party engages in
any wrongful conduct. A third party’s conduct cannot cause accrual of a cause of action against
Kassab before Kassab engaged in the wrongful conduct. Agar’s holding is simply not relevant.
15
Because the relevant issue for limitations is Kassab’s misappropriation of Pohl’s trade
secrets, the Court properly asked the jury about misappropriation “by Kassab.”8 Further, Kassab’s
discussion of unproven alleged wrongful conduct by persons other than Kassab has no bearing on
when limitations began to run. Kassab has not established his affirmative defensek, and the Court
should reject Kassab’s recycled limitations arguments.9 l
H. The Court properly declined to submit Kassab’s jury questicons related to non-
applicable affirmative defenses (Motion for New Trial Issure #9 and Motion for
JNOV Issues ## 4–5). s
Kassab was not entitled to jury questions on his unlawful acts doctrine and privilege
defenses. The proportionate responsibility statute preempts the unlawful acts doctrine. Kassab’s
privilege defense has no support in Texas law, and he relies on out-of-state authority taken out of
context to support the idea that the defense exists in the first place. The Court properly declined
to submit these defenses to the jury, given the lack of support for such questions.
1. The unlawful acts doctrine is preempted and does not apply.
Kassab first argues that he waes entitled to a jury question to help him establish a defense
based on the unlawful acts doctrinfe. See Motion for New Trial at 22–23; Motion for JNOV at 15–
17. This issue has been exteyns  ively briefed and discussed with the Court.10 To the extent that the
unlawful acts doctrine could have any relevance to this case, it is preempted by Texas’s
proportionate respoansibility statute. In Dugger v. Arredondo, the Texas Supreme Court explicitly
found that “the cfommon law unlawful acts doctrine is no longer a viable defense.” See 408 S.W.3d
825, 831–32 (Tex. 2013). While its holding did not deal with TUTSA claims, its reasoning is
8 See Jury Verdict, Question 5, Ex. A.
9 See Pohl’s Letter responding to arguments raised in Kassab’s April 13, 2023 letter, filed April 18, 2023; Pohl’s
Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants and the
Nicholson Defendants & Exhibits at 14–19, filed Sept. 12, 2022.
10 See Pohl’s Letter Brief Concerning Barratry and Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion at 5–6, filed Aug. 15, 2023; Pohl’s Rule
166(g) Motion at 8–10, filed Nov. 30, 2022; Pohl’s Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions for Summary
Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants and the Nicholson Defendants & Exhibits at 19–27.
16
based on the applicability of the proportionate responsibility statute, and that reasoning applies
squarely to this case. Kassab cannot claim the benefit of the proportionate responsibility statute
while simultaneously seeking to apply the conflicting unlawful acts doctrine defense.11
But even if this defense were not preempted, it would not be applicable.k It would only
apply if Pohl needed to rely on a purported illegal act to establish his claims. Slee Carcamo-Lopez
v. Does 1 through 20, 865 F. Supp. 2d 736, 767 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (“But cwhen the illegal conduct
arises in a defense and not in the plaintiff’s case, the unlawful acts rsule will not bar a plaintiff’s
claims.”). Kassab contends that barratry provides the support fsor this defense. But Pohl did not
need to rely on establishing acts of barratry to prove his case. Thus, this defense has no application,
and the Court properly did not submit a question to the jury on this defense.
2. Kassab did not enjoy a privilege to engage in misappropriation of trade secrets.
Kassab’s second argument is that he had a privilege to disclose Pohl’s trade secrets and
enjoys immunity from Pohl’s claims as a result. See Motion for New Trial at 24–25; Motion for
JNOV at 17–19. Kassab cannot coenspire to misappropriate and acquire information for his
commercial benefit and then claimf that he was justified or privileged to do so because he believed
Pohl had improperly soliciteyd some clients. That is the privilege that Kassab is asking the Court
to be the first Court inC Texas to adopt—parties can be justified or privileged to engage in the
misappropriation ofa trade secrets if they believe it will help uncover the wrongdoing of others.
The Court has, afnd should continue to, reject this novel theory.
TUhere is a reason that Kassab relies on out-of-state case law to support his argument. No
Texas case law demonstrates that Kassab’s defense exists. Even the authority that Kassab does
discuss is distinguishable. For example, Kassab cites Alderson v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 2d
11 It is notable that Kassab primarily relies on caselaw that pre-dates Dugger, and he cites no caselaw grappling with
the implications of Dugger yet finding that the unlawful acts doctrine remains applicable.
17
1186, 1200 (C.D. Cal. 2010), for the statement that “[t]here simply cannot be any trade secret about
ongoing illegality.” See Motion for New Trial at 24; Motion for JNOV at 19. But as discussed in
prior briefing,12 the reasoning of Alderson has no application to this case. Alderson dealt with
whether the plaintiff had a protectable property interest in his knowledge of “infkormation about
ongoing illegal activities”—that is, how a Medicare fraud occurred that was lthe basis of a prior
False Claims Act action. See Alderson, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1200. The fcacts of this case are not
analogous. Here, Pohl does not claim trade secret protection concersning how any alleged illegal
conduct was undertaken. Instead, Pohl contended, and the jurys found, that Pohl’s customer lists
and related information were entitled to trade secret protection.
Because Kassab’s supposed affirmative defenses were not legally viable, the Court did
commit error in refusing to submit them to the jury. But regardless, Kassab failed to introduce
evidence at trial sufficient to establish these deafenses. The Court should reject Kassab’s arguments
related to these defenses. 
I. A barratry finding would ehave had no legal effect, so the Court properly limited
opinion evidence on whether barratry occurred and it has no impact on causation
(Motion for New Trialf Issue #10 and Motion for JNOV Issue # 10).
As has been extensivyely argued throughout this lawsuit, an opinion on whether barratry
occurred has no bearinCg on Pohl’s right to recover on his claims. Contrary to Kassab’s repeated
protestations otherwaise, a finding that barratry occurred would not change the fact that Pohl had
an ownership infterest in his contracts and the information they contain. It would not make Pohl
any moreU or less responsible for attorneys’ fees in the barratry proceedings. Nor is it a defense to
any other aspect of Pohl’s claims. As a result, on relevance grounds alone, the Court was permitted
12 See Pohl’s Letter Brief Concerning Barratry and Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion at 2, filed Aug. 15, 2023; Pohl’s
Response in Opposition to the Amended Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants at 11–12,
filed March 29, 2023.
18
to limit opinion evidence on barratry at trial. Pohl’s prior briefing on file addresses this issue in
more detail.13
Kassab’s alternative argument is that barratry defeats proximate cause. Motion for JNOV
at 34–35. Kassab did not preserve this proximate cause issue by objecting durinkg trial or at the
charge conference. But even if Kassab had not waived this issue and prolximate cause is a
necessary part of Pohl’s claims, the jury heard evidence sufficient tco establish that Kassab
proximately caused Pohl’s injuries. Some of Pohl’s damages are dirsectly linked to Kassab. For
example, the reasonable royalty and development cost damagses are directly linked to Pohl no
longer having exclusive use and control over compilations of his client information. There is a
direct causal connection between that occurring and Kassab wrongfully acquiring Pohl’s trade
secrets from Favre, who was duty-bound to keep that information confidential.
Pohl’s damages based on attorneys’ faees in separate proceedings were also proximately
caused by Kassab’s conduct. The jury heard evidence about the lengths that Kassab went to when
soliciting large numbers of people eto find a small number of people who would allege Pohl
committed barratry. He tried unfsuccessfully to solicit such people through letters sent based on
public information, but he onyly successfully obtained clients after he purchased Pohl’s trade secrets
and used them to engagCe in a mass-solicitation effort.
Finally, Kassab argues that “Pohl’s former clients’ decision to bring the barratry
proceedings wfefre a superseding or new and intervening causes of Pohl’s damages.” Motion for
JNOV at U35. But the actions of those persons were foreseeable by Kassab, as their actions to bring
suit were his specific goal and they acted with Kassab’s assistance. As a result, they were not a
13 See Pohl’s Rule 104(c) Motion Disputing the Admissibility of Lance Kassab’s Testimony as an Expert Witnesses
at 4–9, filed Aug. 4, 2023; Pohl’s Letter Brief Concerning Barratry and Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion, filed Aug. 15,
2023; Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion at 2–8, filed Nov. 30, 2022; Pohl’s Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of
Defendants’ Expert Witnesses at 2–6, filed Nov. 30, 2022.
19
superseding or intervening cause. See Dew v. Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 448, 452
(Tex. 2006) (stating that “the threshold, and often controlling, inquiry when distinguishing
between a concurring and a superseding cause remains ‘whether the intervening cause and its
probable consequences were such as could reasonably have been anticipated kby the original
wrongdoer.’” (citation omitted)). l
Pohl has never been found by any adjudicatory body to have ccommitted barratry. Yet
Kassab continues to state conclusively that Pohl’s supposed barratry iss responsible for every harm
Pohl suffered. That is not the case, and the Court properly impossed limits on Kassab’s attempts to
inject barratry as an issue at trial.
J. Kassab is not entitled to immunity for his tortious conduct that occurred before
the existence of an attorney–client relationship (Motion for New Trial Issues ##
11–12 and Motion for JNOV Issues ## 6–8).
Kassab argues that he is entitled to relief based on his defenses of attorney immunity,
immunity under the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, and the judicial proceedings privilege.
See Motion for New Trial at 27–29; Meotion for JNOV at 19–26. Kassab’s arguments are legally
incorrect, as demonstrated througfh f the ample briefing of these issues.14
1. Kassab’s theory oyf attorney immunity is contrary to Texas Supreme Court precedent.
Kassab complains that the jury instruction on attorney immunity used the phrase “while in
an attorney relationaship” and that the evidence showed that his use of Pohl’s trade secrets occurred
in the context off attorney–client relationships. See Motion for New Trial at 27–29; Motion for
JNOV at 23–26. Kassab argues that the Court erred by using language from the Texas Supreme
Court in the jury question. It makes no sense to object to this language when the Texas Supreme
14 See Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion at 12–14, filed Nov. 30, 2022; Pohl’s Response in Opposition to the Traditional
Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants and the Nicholson Defendants & Exhibits at 27–31,
filed Sept. 12, 2022.
20
Court held that one of the two relevant inquiries for establishing attorney immunity is whether a
party demonstrates “the existence of an attorney–client relationship at the time.” Youngkin v.
Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675, 683 (Tex. 2018).
The jury rejected Kassab’s other argument—that the evidence shows his kacquisition and
use of Pohl’s trade secrets occurred in the context of attorney–client relationshlips.15 Kassab used
and disclosed Pohl’s trade secrets as part of a mass solicitation used to acttempt to sign up Pohl’s
former clients. An attorney–client relationship cannot pre-date contasct between the attorney and
a prospective client. Thus, there was no attorney–client relationsship at the time Kassab used and
disclosed Pohl’s trade secrets by soliciting people through a mass-mailing campaign.
2. Pohl’s claims accrued prior to Kassab participating in the grievance process, so Pohl’s
claims cannot be predicated on Kassab’s participation in that process.
Kassab argues that he is entitled to immulnity because he participated in filing grievances
against Pohl. See Motion for JNOV at 19–M20. But Rule 17.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure does not grant Kassab absoluote immunity for anything he does with some connection to
the grievance system. Instead, it cprovides that: “No lawsuit may be instituted against any
Complainant or witness predicated upon the filing of a Grievance or participation in the attorney
disciplinary and disability system.” TEX. RULES DISCIPLINARY P. R. 17.09. It does not provide
immunity simply because there is some connection between a case and the grievance process.
For Rule c17.09 to have any application, this lawsuit would need to have been “predicated
upon” Kassab’s involvement in the grievance process. But Pohl’s claim for misappropriation
accrued upon Kassab’s acquisition or use of Pohl’s client information, which occurred no later
than when Kassab used that client information to solicit Pohl’s clients. This undisputedly occurred
prior to any grievance being filed by Kassab. Because the claims asserted pre-date the filing or
15 See Jury Verdict, Question 6, Ex. A.
21
participation in any grievance by Kassab, this lawsuit cannot have been “predicated upon the filing
of a Grievance,” and Rule 17.09 does not apply. The Court should reject Kassab’s arguments.16
3. The judicial proceedings privilege has no application to the facts of this case.
The judicial proceedings privilege applies only to communications “in the kdue course of a
judicial proceeding,” and the privilege protects against a claim for libel or slanlder. Landry’s, Inc.
v. Animal Legal Def. Fund, 631 S.W.3d 40, 46 (Tex. 2021). Given that tche basis of Pohl’s claim
is not a communication made in the due course of a judicial proceesding, and Pohl has not sued
Kassab for libel or slander, the judicial proceedings privilege does not apply.
Kassab argues that even though Pohl’s claims do not assert claims for libel or slander, the
judicial proceedings privilege should apply because Pohl’s claims arise out of communications.
But even to the extent that Pohl’s claims relate to communications, the gravamen of Pohl’s
complaint is not reputational harm or a theory equivalent to libel or slander. Pohl suffered actual
losses as the result of Kassab’s misappropriation of Pohl’s trade secrets that occurred prior to any
proceeding existing and prior to Kasesab having an attorney–client relationship with a client who
could even initiate a relevant judifcial proceeding.
The judicial proceedyings privilege is not a get-out-jail-free card. Kassab is not free to
engage in tortious condCuct with impunity simply because that wrongful conduct eventually led to
Kassab helping brinag numerous failed judicial proceedings against Pohl. The Court should not
extend the appflication of this privilege to not only a time before the initiation of a judicial
proceedinUg but a time before a relevant attorney–client relationship existed whereby a relevant
judicial proceeding could even be contemplated.
16 See also Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion at 12–14, filed Nov. 30, 2022.
22
K. The Court properly allowed Pohl to present evidence of his “actual losses”
suffered as a result of Kassab’s violations of TUTSA (Motion for New Trial Issue #
13 and Motion for JNOV Issue #9(A)).
Pohl suffered losses in the form of attorneys’ fees in multiple unsuccessful separate
proceedings that Pohl may recover as “actual losses” under TUTSA. Kassab akrgues that such
damages are barred and that Pohl should not have been permitted to put forwalrd evidence of his
damages. See Motion for New Trial at 29–34; Motion for JNOV at 27–c32. However, the plain
meaning of “actual damages,” which Pohl is statutorily authorizeds to recover, supports Pohl’s
recovery. Further, the tort-of-another doctrine permits Pohl to recover fees incurred in a separate
proceeding as damages in this case.
The Court should take note that Kassab continues to cite case law in a misleading fashion
despite being on notice that he had falsely characterized cases in his briefing with the Court. For
example, Kassab cites LaCore Enterprises, LLC v. Angles, No. 05-21-00798-CV, 2023 WL
2607562, at *9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 23, 2023, no pet.) to suggest that Texas courts have
rejected the idea that “attorneys’ feees in other cases [can] be recovered as actual damages in a
trade secret claim.” See Motion fofr New Trial at 31; Motion for JNOV at 28–29 (emphasis added).
But that case did not deal wiyth attorneys’ fees from “other cases,” it dealt with the uncontroversial
proposition that fees frCom the same proceeding are not damages. LaCore, 2023 WL 2607562, at
*9. Kassab was tolda that his use of this case was inaccurate, yet he continues to cite it to the Court
in a misleading fmanner.17
PoUhl’s damages are recoverable under two alternative theories. First, the fees from other
cases constitute “actual losses” under TUTSA. Contrary to Kassab’s suggestion that these
damages are rigidly limited to specific categories, a “‘flexible and imaginative’ approach is applied
17 See Pohl’s Reply to Kassab’s Post-Hearing Letter on Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Judgment at 10 n. 6, filed Sept. 22,
2023.
23
to the calculation of damages in misappropriation-of-trade-secrets cases.” Sw. Energy Prod. Co.
v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699, 710 (Tex. 2016). Second, Pohl’s damages are also recoverable
under the tort of another doctrine. Kassab relies on non-binding caselaw to suggest this doctrine
does not apply. But he ignores precedent stating otherwise. See Dixon Fin. Skervices, Ltd. v.
Chang, 325 S.W.3d 668, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. dlenied) (“Equitable
principles allow the recovery of attorney’s fees as actual damages whenc a party was required to
prosecute or defend a prior legal action as a consequence of a wrongfsul act of the defendant.”).
Kassab’s recycled arguments on damages have alreadys been made to the Court. Pohl’s
prior briefing addresses the arguments in more detail.18 The Court should reject Kassab’s
arguments on this issue, many of which rely on twisting or ignoring applicable case law that
Kassab is aware of through prior briefing in this case.
L. There is sufficient evidence to supaport the jury’s various calculations of damages
(Motion for New Trial Issues ##M 14–15 and Motion for JNOV Issue #9(B)).
Kassab argues that there was “oinsufficient evidence” and “no evidence” to support the
jury’s findings of market value ancd development cost damages and that the Court improperly
allowed Pohl to provide opinion testimony. See Motion for New Trial at 34–37; Motion for JNOV
at 32–34. Even assuming Kassab’s objections on these issues were preserved at trial, Kassab’s
arguments fall short. The record supports the jury’s damages findings, and Pohl’s limited opinion
testimony on damcages was proper.
1. The jury’s findings of market value damages or reasonable royalty damages are
Usupported by evidence.
The jury heard testimony and saw evidence that supported its award of reasonable royalty
or market value damages. Kassab contends that the only evidence before the jury of the so-called
18 See, e.g., Pohl’s Reply in Support of His Motion for Entry of Final Judgment at 9–12, filed Sept. 18, 2023; see also
Pohl’s Reply to Kassab’s Post-Hearing Letter on Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Judgment at 4–5, filed Sept. 22, 2023.
24
market value of Pohl’s trade secrets was evidence of the “purchase price” Kassab paid to obtain
them. See Motion for New Trial at 35; Motion for JNOV at 33. But that is not true.
Pohl provided competent opinion testimony as the owner of the relevant property on the
market value of his trade secrets. His opinion was informed by not only the cost tok Pohl to obtain
the relevant trade secrets, but also multiple attempts to purchase the property alnd an actual sale of
the property that was contemporaneous with the misappropriation of Pohlc’s trade secrets. See Red
Sea Gaming, Inc. v. Block Investments (Nevada) Co., 338 S.W.3d 5s62, 572–73 (Tex. App.—El
Paso 2010, pet. denied) (showing it is appropriate for a propesrty owner to consider unaccepted
offers to purchase the property, knowledge of the relevant market, and the price at which the sale
of property occurred).
Contrary to Kassab’s assertions, it was proper for Pohl to provide this opinion testimony
under the property owner rule. Binding preceadent confirms the property owner rule applies even
when dealing with intangible property. See Custom Transit, L.P. v. Flatrolled Steel, Inc., 375
S.W.3d 337, 352 (Tex. App.—Housteon [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (citations omitted). And
though it may be more difficult tof put a value on Pohl’s trade secrets, that is not a per se bar to his
opinion testimony. See Jabryi v. Alsayyed, 145 S.W.3d 660, 667 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2004, no pet.) (allowiCng a property owner to testify regarding the market value of business
goodwill, which is intangible property). Pohl was properly permitted to present evidence on this
issue, and the jfufry was free to weigh the bases for his opinions.
TUhe jury also saw documentary evidence relevant to the price a willing buyer would pay
for Pohl’s trade secrets. The Favre affidavit discussed multiple offers to buy Pohl’s trade secrets
and that the information could be sold multiple times. The jury also saw a document a federal
judge described as a contract to purchase Pohl’s trade secrets. That document not only had a lump
25
sum price, but it also provided for continuing payments under the contract. Finally, the jury also
heard testimony from Kassab personally that went to the value he placed on Pohl’s trade secrets at
the time he purchased the trade secrets.
2. The jury’s development cost damages are supported by evidence. k
Kassab suggests that no evidence exists to support the jury’s award ofl development cost
damages, but he ignores the multiple categories of evidence admitted at trcial. See Motion for New
Trial at 35–36; Motion for JNOV at 33–34. One such category is Kasssab’s testimony and related
evidence that Kassab proffered to suggest that he did not need to purchase Pohl’s trade secrets.
The jury was permitted to weigh this evidence, and the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s
award of development cost damages.
Kassab testified and claimed that he did not need to purchase Pohl’s trade secrets because
he could independently gather contact information for Pohl’s clients. The jury heard and saw
evidence concerning the time Kassab’s office expended to compile contact information to send a
small number of initial advertisemenet letters in 2015. The jury also saw evidence of the hourly
rates for Lance and David Kassabf.
The jury was free toy look at this evidence and conclude that if Kassab had the names of
Pohl’s clients, but notC the contact information, $200,000 was the value of the avoided costs to
Kassab. He avoideda the need to manually research and compile contact information (the jury saw
evidence that thfis required sending the same letter to multiple alternative addresses) by instead
obtainingU accurate contact information from Pohl’s attorney–client contracts. Even if Kassab
preserved this objection on this issue, he failed to demonstrate that the jury’s finding is unsupported
by the trial record.
26
M. The jury properly found that Kassab engaged in a willful and malicious
misappropriation of Pohl’s trade secrets (Motion for New Trial Issue #16).
Contrary to Kassab’s assertion, the jury unanimously found that Kassab engaged in a
“willful and malicious” misappropriation by “clear and convincing evidence.”19 And the
testimony and documentary evidence shown to the jury at trial constituted “clearr and convincing
evidence of outrageous, malicious, or otherwise reprehensible conduct” by Kassab that supports a
finding of exemplary damages based on malice.20 See Horizon Health Croirp. v. Acadia Healthcare
Co., Inc., 520 S.W.3d 848, 867 (Tex. 2017). D
Kassab dismissively suggests that there are only two castegories of evidence relevant to this
issue. While there was ample evidence on these issues prresented at trial, one of the categories of
evidence that Kassab highlights demonstrates that the evidence supports the jury’s finding of
malice. Contrary to what Kassab may think, the levidence showing that Kassab filed “a grievance
against Pohl and cop[ied multiple] news ouMtlets and the District Attorney” is highly probative of
malice. See Motion for New Trial at 39o.
First, Kassab downplays thec scope of his conduct. While Kassab may have personally only
filed a single grievance against Pohl, he was involved in drumming up seven failed grievances
against Pohl. Even after Kassab was aware that the grievances Kassab assisted in bringing were
without merit, Kassab filed another grievance that reasserted previously rejected allegations of
wrongdoing againcst Pohl.
Not content with attacking Pohl through the grievance process and court system, Kassab
also sought to destroy Pohl and his reputation publicly and within the professional community of
Texas lawyers. After filing a meritless grievance based partially on conduct already found to not
19 See Jury Verdict, Question 17 (instructing jury that to respond “Yes,” jury’s “answer must be unanimous.”), Ex. A.
20 Here, for the relevant conduct, Mr. Kassab acted on behalf of his firm at all times. Thus, the evidence is equally
applicable to Mr. Kassab and his law firm.
27
constitute ethical violations, Kassab took the unprecedented step of publicizing the unreviewed
grievance to the Texas Attorney General, the Harris County District Attorney, the Houston
Chronicle, The Texas Lawyer, and a then-candidate for Texas State Bar President. The jury saw
this evidence and heard about the unprecedented nature of Kassab publicizing a gkrievance in this
manner. This is evidence the jury could view as clearly demonstrating lKassab wanted to
improperly inflict unnecessary pain, inconvenience, public shame, and mconetary cost on Pohl.
Kassab argues the “evidence is further insufficient because Poshl ‘adduced no evidence that
[Kassab] caused [Pohl] an injury independent of and qsualitatively different than the
misappropriation itself.’” Motion for New Trial at 40 (alterations in original) (citation omitted).
But the Texas Supreme Court said that “this type of malice might exist ‘where the employer
circulates false or malicious rumors about the employee before or after the discharge ... or actively
interferes with the employee's ability to find otaher employment.’” Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 365
S.W.3d 655, 662 (Tex. 2012), as corrected (June 8, 2012) (cleaned up). That is analogous to the
situation here. Kassab sought to infliect reputational harm on Pohl outside the litigation process.
Other evidence showed tfhe jury that Kassab was willing to go to great lengths to target
Pohl. For example, undery the guise of a phony expert witness agreement, Kassab secretly
purchased Pohl’s clienCt files and trade secrets for his own benefit. He then lied saying it was not
a purchase agreement—including lying to the jury’s faces—despite a federal judge saying it was
a purchase agrefefment. The jury also saw that, in that agreement, Kassab was willing to indemnify
Favre agaUinst claims related to the disclosure of Pohl’s client information. This demonstrated
Kassab’s knowledge of the breach of client confidentiality and duty of confidentiality owed by
Favre when he acquired Pohl’s trade secrets.
28
The jury saw evidence of Kassab’s conduct towards Pohl beyond merely misappropriating
Pohl’s trade secrets. Kassab attacked Pohl and tried to destroy him professionally and personally.
The jury was empowered to consider this, and other evidence, and form a firm conviction that
Kassab acted with malice towards Pohl when he misappropriated Pohl’s trade secrkets.
N. The jury properly awarded exemplary damages against KassabC (lMotion for New
Trial Issue #17 and Motion for JNOV Issue #12). 
The jury unanimously awarded Pohl exemplary damages againr ist Kassab after receiving
considerable evidence regarding the blatant and offensive nature Dof Kassab’s wrongful conduct.
Kassab’s argument otherwise ignores the testimony at trial asnd impermissibly assumes that the
jury ignored the Court’s instructions to only award exemplrary damages if the jury were unanimous
in finding such damages proper.
Pohl previously responded to Kassab’s arglument that the jury was not unanimous with the
necessary findings to support an award of Mexemplary damages. See Pohl’s Reply in Support of
His Motion for Entry of Final Judgmeont at 2–8, filed Sept. 18, 2023; see also Pohl’s Reply to
Kassab’s Post-Hearing Letter on Pochl’s Motion for Entry of Judgment at 1–4, filed Sept. 22, 2023.
Pohl will not reiterate those recently briefed issues here and instead relies on his prior briefing.
Kassab’s factually sufficiency arguments also fall short. The jury’s award of exemplary
damages complies with the statutory requirement that exemplary damages not exceed twice the
amount of actualc damages. Here, the jury found that Pohl suffered over $2 million in actual
damages, so t o he jury’s award of $3 million in exemplary damages is proper.21
The remainder of Kassab’s factual argument relies on him making the conclusory assertion
that “the jury probably considered improper items of alleged damages in assessing exemplary
damages.” See Motion for New Trial at 41. But Kassab ignores evidence that went to multiple
21 See Jury Verdict, Question 7, Ex. A.
29
factors relevant to an award of punitive damages, and he ignores the potential scenario where the
jury simply disagreed with him on what the evidence at trial suggested. For example, Kassab does
not give any weight to the evidence at trial that showed Kassab’s malice. See supra Part IV(M).
The jury saw evidence that despite the various persons involved, Kassab bore perskonal culpability
for the wrongful conduct as the person orchestrating the conspiracy against Pohll. Kassab also lied
to the jury by misrepresenting the nature of his contract to purchase Pohl’cs trade secrets.
Finally, the jury saw other evidence relevant to establishing thast Kassab’s conduct offended
a public sense of justice and propriety. Kassab holds himself oust as someone who upholds ethical
rules and ensures lawyers act honestly. He proudly professes that he is aware of the ethical duties
of lawyers. The jury saw this evidence, and they also saw evidence of Kassab acting unethically
and deceitfully—he improperly accessed another lawyer’s confidential client information—in
orchestrating a scheme to misappropriate Pohal’s trade secrets and harass Pohl personally.
Kassab’s suggestion that none of the evidence supported the factors weighed in awarding
exemplary damages is belied by the etrial record. The jury was well within its rights to find that
the record supported an award off $3 million in exemplary damages against Kassab.
O. Pohl’s conspiracyy claim was not preempted (Motion for New Trial Issue #18 and
Motion for JNOV Issue #11).
The Court has previously ruled that Pohl’s conspiracy claim is not preempted. Kassab
argues that TUTScA conflicts with and preempts Pohl’s conspiracy claim. See Motion for New
Trial at 41–43; Motion for JNOV at 35–36. Kassab’s argument is inconsistent with his position
that proportionate responsibility applies to the TUTSA claim, and he does not address that
inconsistency. Kassab’s argument was rejected by the Court before, and the Court should reject it
again.
30
As discussed in Pohl’s prior briefing,22 after Texas adopted TUTSA, Texas trial courts
continued to submit TUTSA and conspiracy claims to the jury. This is because conspiracy, like
proportionate responsibility, does not provide a conflicting remedy that is preempted under
TUTSA. Pohl’s TUTSA claim provides the remedy—damages for misappropriatikng Pohl’s trade
secrets. Conspiracy makes the same remedy apply jointly and severallly among multiple
defendants. That is no more objectionable or inconsistent with TUTSAc than the proportionate
responsibility statute—which Kassab argues is applicable—that smodifies the remedy so a
defendant is responsible for a percentage of the harm. s 
Because there is no conflict between TUTSA and the joint and several liability imposed by
a finding of conspiracy, the Court properly submitted Pohl’s conspiracy claim to the jury. Kassab’s
arguments otherwise are inconsistent with his position on the applicability of proportionate
responsibility, and the Court should deny Kaassab’s request for a new trial or to set aside the
judgment on these grounds. 
P. The Court properly deniede Kassab’s request to designate non-relevant persons as
responsible third parties (Motion for New Trial Issue #19).
The Court properly denied Kassab’s request to designate five additional persons as
responsible third parties after Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating their liability.
Despite being given the opportunity to re-plead and satisfy his pleading burden, Kassab chose not
to comply with thce legal standard to designate these persons as responsible third parties, and the
Court properly denied his request to designate additional responsible third parties as a result.
Kassab first attempted to designate the five people at issue as responsible third parties in
early 2022.23 Pohl objected because Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts showing the alleged
22 See Pohl’s Reply in Support of His Motion for Entry of Final Judgment at 13–15, filed Sept. 18, 2023; see also
Pohl’s Reply to Kassab’s Post-Hearing Letter on Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Judgment at 6, filed Sept. 22, 2023.
23 See generally Kassab’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed May 13, 2022.
31
responsible third parties were responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s claims.24 The 189th
District Court agreed with Pohl’s objections and denied Kassab’s motion.25 Later that year, Kassab
filed two supplemental motions to designate responsible third parties. Pohl did not oppose
designating certain persons listed in Kassab’s second supplemental motion as reksponsible third
parties. However, in Kassab’s first supplemental motion, Kassab sought to dlesignate the same
five people as responsible third parties that were at issue in his first moticon and that Kassab now
complains about in his Motion for New Trial. s
Pohl filed a response in opposition to Kassab’s second attsempt to designate the five relevant
people as responsible third parties.26 Despite the 189th District Court finding that Kassab failed
to meet the pleading standard—which required Kassab to plead sufficient facts showing that the
alleged responsible third parties were responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s claims—Kassab
pled the same facts. Kassab tried to disguisea this fact by reordering and lightly paraphrasing or
modifying the allegations.27 In such circumstances, it was not an abuse of this Court’s discretion
to deny Kassab’s Supplemental Motieon to Designate Responsible Third Parties.
The Court’s decision to dfeny Kassab’s motion was proper on other grounds as well. For
example, the limitations periyods on Pohl’s torts claims passed with respect to the persons at issue,
and Kassab failed to coCmply with his obligations “to timely disclose that the[se] person[s] may be
designated as a responsible third party under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.” See TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. fCf ODE § 33.004(d). Because Kassab’s responses to Pohl’s requests for disclosure
24 See generally Pohl’s Objection to Kassab’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed May 31, 2022.
25 See Court Order, dated Oct. 31, 2022 (denying Kassab’s first motion to designate responsible third parties).
26 See generally Pohl’s Objection to Kassab’s Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed Nov.
30, 2022.
27 See id. at 3–5 (discussing how Kassab failed to plead any new substantive factual allegations).
32
did not include the necessary information, this was an independent basis to not designate the
persons at issue as responsible third parties. See In re Dawson, 550 S.W.3d 625, 630 (Tex. 2018).
Q. The Court properly exercised its discretion to not abate this case (Motion for New
Trial Issue #20).
In the fall of 2022, Kassab filed his Motion to Abate. The 189th Districrt Court correctly
found that abatement of this case was not proper or necessary. Kassab then sought reconsideration
of that ruling from this Court, and the Court exercised its discretion anrdi denied Kassab’s request
to abate this case. Kassab’s arguments for why this lawsuit shoulDd have been abated pending the
resolution of another lawsuit were not squarely presenteds in his prior motion requesting
abatement.28 Even if Kassab’s arguments were not waiverd, the Court properly chose not to abate
this case before,29 and Kassab’s two current arguments do not demonstrate it was an abuse of this
Court’s discretion to deny his request for abatemelnt.
First, Kassab claims that “the outcomMe of Cheatham could alter the course of this litigation
because if it resulted in a judgment agaoinst Pohl for barratry, Pohl could not have argued that all
the barratry claims brought against hcim were frivolous.” Motion for New Trial at 45. But barratry
is not a defense to Pohl’s claims. In each of the other cases and grievances alleging barratry,
Kassab failed to obtain a finding of barratry against Pohl. But even if there were eventually a
liability finding against Pohl in Cheatham, it would not have changed Pohl’s right to recover on
his claims in this clawsuit.30
Second, Kassab argues that abatement was proper because Pohl’s damages in this case
involved Pohl’s attorneys’ fees from Cheatham, “[b]ut if Pohl had been found liable for barratry
28 Compare Motion for New Trial at 44–45, with Kassab’s Motion to Abate Trial Setting at 1–5, filed Sept. 6, 2022,
and Kassab’s Motion to Reconsider or Rule at 2, filed Feb. 23, 2023,
29 See Plaintiff’s Response to Kassab’s Motion to Abate Trial Setting, filed Sept. 15, 2022; see also Plaintiffs’
Response in Partial Opposition to Kassab’s Motion to Reconsider or Rule at 3, filed March 8, 2023.
30 See also Pohl’s Letter Brief Concerning Barratry and Pohl’s Rule 166(g) Motion, filed Aug. 15, 2023; Pohl’s Rule
166(g) Motion at 2–8, filed Nov. 30, 2022.
33
in Cheatham, then he would have been required to pay attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs in that case.”
See id. This, again, has no materiality to the issues in this case. Kassab’s hypothetical world, in
which Pohl paid third parties for their attorneys’ fees in Cheatham, does not impact whether
Kassab is liable in this lawsuit for Pohl’s attorneys’ fees in Cheatham. Kassab isk conflating two
separate categories of attorneys’ fees. This does not provide a basis for abatelment and certainly
does not establish that the Court abused its discretion in denying Kassab’cs request for abatement.
R. Pohl did not waive the attorney–client privilege throughs offensive use, and he
presented proper evidence of his fees (Motion for New Trial Issues #21 & #23).
Kassab makes two types of arguments related to prsivilege and attorneys’ fees. First,
Kassab argues that the offensive use doctrine applies, anrd Pohl waived privilege with respect to
multiple categories of privileged information related to Billy Shepherd. Motion for New Trial 45–
47. Second, Kassab argues that Pohl’s evidence alt trial concerning attorneys’ fees was conclusory
and improperly redacted. Id. at 49–54. KaMssab’s arguments do not survive scrutiny.
As a threshold point, Kassab’s ocaselaw recognizes that “attorney invoices are routinely
redacted when offered into evidencce to protect attorney–client and work-product privileges.”
KBIDC Investments, LLC v. Zuru Toys Inc., No. 05-19-00159-CV, 2020 WL 5988014, at *22 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Oct. 9, 2020, pet. denied). See Motion for New Trial at 53 (citing KBIDC). Despite
citing this case law, Kassab wrongly suggests that such redactions are per se inappropriate.
1. Kassacb did not establish the applicability of offensive use waiver.
Pohl doid not engage in offensive use that could waive the attorney client privilege because
he did not improperly use or take advantage of privileged materials to support his claims. The
Texas Supreme Court established a three-part test for offensive use waiver that required Kassab to
establish (1) Pohl sought affirmative relief that implicated privileged materials; (2) the withheld
privileged materials would be outcome determinative; and (3) disclosure of the privileged
34
materials is the only way to obtain the evidence. See Republic Ins. Co. v. Davis, 856 S.W.2d 158
(Tex. 1993); see also In re Microvast, Inc., No. 01-18-00049-CV, 2018 WL 4131068, at *5 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2018, no pet.).
Kassab never established the three relevant factors to show offensive usek waiver. Thus,
the Court properly declined to compel the production of privileged materials.l It is worth noting
that Mr. Shepherd became a witness in this case at Kassab’s request. Kcassab subpoenaed Billy
Shepherd’s deposition and documents in this case and then designasted Mr. Shepherd as a trial
witness in November 2022. Mr. Shepherd complied with Kassabs’s subpoena—he produced nearly
a half million pages of documents and was deposed at Kassab’s request. Kassab was not happy
with the voluminous information he requested, so he filed a motion to compel.31
Kassab wanted the 189th District Court to overrule privilege objections, require the
production of additional documents, and requaire the production of unredacted invoices. But the
record was clear that Kassab sought to pierce privilege to obtain discovery about the mental
impressions of his opposing counsel ein a different lawsuit and engage in a fishing expedition in
the hopes that privileged communfications and documents would be relevant to his defenses. Pohl
responded and pointed out tyhat Kassab failed to carry his burden to establish the applicability of
the offensive use doctrCine.32 This Court agreed when it properly rejected Kassab’s prior request
to reconsider this ruling.
Kassabf aflso failed to demonstrate that the offensive use doctrine applied at trial. Redaction
of invoicUes is common, and Kassab could not articulate any specific examples of over-redaction
31 Kassab’s Motion to Compel Testimony & Documents Pursuant to the Offensive Use Doctrine, filed Sept. 20, 2022.
32 See Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to the Kassab Defendants’ Three New Motions to Compel, at 7–16, filed
Sept. 27, 2022.
35
to the Court that were inappropriate. See KBIDC Investments, 2020 WL 5988014, at *22. As a
result, the Court properly allowed Pohl to submit appropriately redacted invoices at trial.
2. Pohl’s evidence of attorneys’ fees was proper and factually sufficient.
Kassab argues that Pohl presented insufficient evidence of attorneys’ fees ikn this lawsuit at
trial because Pohl used redacted invoices, and Kassab contends that certain exlpert testimony was
conclusory. The issue of redacted invoices was discussed at trial, acnd the Court found the
redactions appropriate. Kassab’s other argument is his unsupportsed assertion that the expert
testimony supporting fees was conclusory. Neither argument has merit.
Kassab cherry-picked redacted entries from Pohl’s invoices, but he did not demonstrate
that any such redactions were material or improper. He also does not account for the fact that
Pohl’s attorneys’ fees expert applied a blanket discount to the fees reflected in the redacted
invoices. In addition to excluding certain invoice entries entirely, in reaching an opinion on the
amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees, Pohl’s expert applied a 10% discount to the total amount of
fees to account for any unnecessarye or unrecoverable entries on the fee invoices that were not
otherwise removed. To the extenft that some entries were arguably over-redacted, such an issue is
harmless when a substantialy blanket deduction is applied like it was here. For the same reason,
although the conversioCn and TUTSA claims were intertwined, any time entries that advanced only
the conversion claima were resolved by this blanket, catch-all deduction.
Finally, fKassab’s contention that Mr. Zavitsanos’s testimony was conclusory is without
evidentiaUry support. When Mr. Zavitsanos’s testimony was fresh in the Court’s recollection, the
Court found his testimony sufficient to submit the issue of attorneys’ fees to the jury. Kassab’s
argument to the contrary lacks any evidentiary support. Pohl contends that the record will show
that Mr. Zavitsanos’s testimony was not conclusory and that he provided “opinion testimony about
36
the services [he] reasonably believes will be necessary to defend the appeal and a reasonable hourly
rate for those services.” See Yowell v. Granite Operating Co., 620 S.W.3d 335, 355 (Tex. 2020).
Additionally, the case law that Kassab cites is inapplicable to the circumstances of this
case. Kassab cites Desio v. Del Bosque, No. 05-21-00022-CV, 2022 WL 50002k5 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Feb. 18, 2022, no pet.) on the issue of conclusory evidence. Motion folr New Trial at 53.
But that case dealt with a fee affidavit where the attorney “did not specifyc the amount of time any
person spent on particular tasks and no billing records were submitteds.” Desio, 2022 WL 500025,
at *2. At trial, Pohl provided precisely this type of evidence to sthe jury. The Court should reject
Kassab’s unsupported objection to the sufficiency of the evidence on attorneys’ fees.
S. The 189th District Court properly dismissed Kassab’s counterclaim for civil
barratry (Motion for New Trial Issue #22).
Before this case was transferred to the lCourt, Kassab asserted counterclaims for civil
barratry against Pohl. Despite asserting coMunterclaims for barratry, Kassab tried to withhold the
identity of who assigned him barratry oclaims—and thus, he withheld information on who Pohl
allegedly committed barratry againsct. After seeking to compel production of this basic information
about Kassab’s counterclaims, Pohl learned that Kassab’s counterclaims were assigned claims
from Kassab’s clients, and those same claims were also asserted in a separate still-pending lawsuit.
Once Pohl learned that the counterclaims were the same claims asserted in another lawsuit,
he quickly discovcered that there was already a judgment in his favor on those claims at the trial
court level, although the claims were still part of an ongoing appeal. Despite his duties as a lawyer
in both this lawsuit and the other lawsuit involving the same barratry claims, Kassab did not notify
the courts involved of his duplicative assertion of the barratry claims in a separate lawsuit. After
uncovering Kassab’s inappropriate behavior with these counterclaims, Pohl moved for summary
37
judgment on multiple grounds, and the 189th District Court properly dismissed Kassab’s
counterclaims.33
First, it was undisputable that Kassab’s counterclaims were the very same claims as those
resolved by prior final judgments on the merits. Res judicata applies to such claimks, and the prior
judgments dismissing those barratry claims precluded Kassab from re-litigatinlg them through his
counterclaim in this lawsuit. Kassab’s argument otherwise relies on a ccase that “addressed the
issue of whether res judicata can bar a subsequent suit on a cause of acstion that was not recognized
until after judgment was rendered in the first suit.” Marino v. sState Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.,
787 S.W.2d 948, 949 (Tex. 1990). That has no application to the facts of this case, where claims
existed and were directly ruled on in a prior proceeding.
Second, Kassab argues that limitations on the counterclaims were tolled by section 16.069
of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Tahis issue should not be reached because the claims
were barred by res judicata. But even if the Court reaches this issue, the counterclaims do not
meet the requirements of section 16.0e69 because they do not arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence as Pohl’s claims, andf Kassab did not give fair notice of the facts giving rise to the
counterclaims within the 30y-day period prescribed by section 16.069. Kassab did not give fair
notice of the claims inC part because he concealed the identity of who assigned him the claims to
avoid disclosing tha a t his claims had been asserted and ruled on against him in a separate lawsuit.34
Third, af fclaim for civil barratry is a punitive statutory claim that is not expressly assignable.
Kassab pUrocured the assigned claims from his then-current clients to evade the statute of
33 See Pohl’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims, filed Dec. 7, 2021; see also Pohl’s Reply
in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims, filed Feb. 4, 2022.
34 This issue is discussed in more detail in the original briefing. See Pohl’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
Defendants’ Counterclaims at 11–12; see also Pohl’s Reply in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment on
Defendants’ Counterclaims at 6–7.
38
limitations and in violation of ethical rules concerning attorney–client transactions. As authorized
by the Texas Supreme Court, the 189th District Court was empowered to refuse to recognize the
assignments, as “assignments may be invalidated on public policy grounds.” See Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
v. Mktg. on Hold Inc., 308 S.W.3d 909, 916 (Tex. 2010); see also PPG Indus., Inc. vk. JMB/Houston
Centers Partners Ltd. P’ship, 146 S.W.3d 79, 87 (Tex. 2004) (“[T]he assignabillity of most claims
does not mean all are assignable; exceptions may be required due to equicty and public policy.”).
Kassab’s counterclaims for barratry were barred for multiple sreasons. After reviewing the
evidence submitted by the parties, the 189th District Cousrt correctly dismissed Kassab’s
counterclaims. That ruling should not be disturbed now, after trial, and after a jury reached a
verdict.
V. CONyCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in Pohl’s prior briefing—which is
incorporated fully herein by reference—Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A.
Pohl respectfully request that the Ceourt deny Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for
JNOV. f
39
Dated: February 2, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650 k
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e
Houston, Texas 77002 l
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250 c
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom
Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERrVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 2nd day of February, 2024.
M /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
 Jean C. Frizzell
40
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 84110431
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Pohl's Response to MNT JNOV t
Status as of 2/2/2024 4:54 PM CST i
Case Contacts D
Name BarNumber Email e TimestampSubmitted Status
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@Bthompsoncoe.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thnompsoncoe.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfoglielr@foglerbrar.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10607900jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo 24003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 2O4012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Todd Taylor y ttaylor@jandflaw.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre o scott@favrepa.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Non-Party Witness Bfilily Shepherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Non-Party Dona Pohl DonaLyann@yahoo.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Non-Party Edgar Jaimes edgarsroom@gmail.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Kevin Dubose 6150500 kdubose@adjtlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Marisa Barrera Cruz Hurd 24041157 mhurd@adjtlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez andrea@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Lance Kassab lance@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
David Kassab david@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 84110431
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Pohl's Response to MNT JNOV t
Status as of 2/2/2024 4:54 PM CST i
Case Contacts D
Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
D Kassab david@kasBsab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@knassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Kelly Skelton recepitlion@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Thallia Malespin tmalespin@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
David Kassab O david@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Harris Wells y hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT
Harris Wells o hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:44:54 PM SENT"
68,2024-02-02,RSP,Pohl,Response to Mtn to Modify Judgment,"Pohl's Response to Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, arguing all arguments are recycled and rejected, the jury properly awarded exemplary damages unanimously (Q17 answered per unanimity instructions, Q19 predicated on unanimous Q17, Kassab waived by not objecting before discharge), attorneys' fees from separate proceedings are recoverable actual losses under TUTSA's broad 'actual loss' definition and tort of another doctrine, damages are not duplicative (TUTSA expressly authorizes both actual loss and unjust enrichment), conspiracy is not preempted (it is a rule of joint liability, not an independent tort or conflicting remedy), and great-weight-and-preponderance arguments are meritless","Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment. Filed simultaneously with Pohl's response to the JNOV and New Trial motions. Incorporates prior briefing by reference.",POST-2,N/A,Phase 5,2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Modify-Judgment_FILED.pdf,"Denial of Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, and any other relief to which Pohl is entitled","2/2/2024 4:20 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 84108335
By: Patricia Gonzalez
Filed: 2/2/2024 4:20 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiffs, §
V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS
§ e
LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l
KASSAB, et. al § 
§ c
Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT
POHL’S RESPONSE TO KASSAB’S
MOTION TO MODIFY, CORRECT, OR REFsORM JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (collectively “Pohl”)
respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab’s and Lance Christopher Kassab,
P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (collectively “Kassab”) motion to modify, correct, or reform
the judgment (“Motion to Modify”). a
I. Summary. 
The Motion to Modify primareily consists of recycled arguments that Kassab has previously
made and that the Court has prefviously rejected. On that ground alone, the motion should be
denied. y
Substantively, CKassab re-argues in shotgun fashion that all of the damages found by the
jury and awarded bay the Court are not recoverable for various erroneous reasons. As Pohl has
previously brieffed at length, however, both the actual damages and exemplary damages are
reasonablUe and fully supported by the verdict, the evidence, and the law. For these and other
reasons that we discuss next, the Motion to Modify should be denied.
II. The Jury Properly Awarded Exemplary Damages, and Pohl is Entitled to Recover
Them.
Kassab contends that the award of exemplary damages is unsupported and improper
because the jury allegedly did not unanimously answer “Yes” in response to Question 17. See
Motion to Modify, p. 4. But that is not true. On its face, the jury charge shorws that the jury
unanimously answered “Yes” to Question 17 after being instructed to only answer the question
“Yes” if the finding was unanimous. See Charge of the Court, p. 24. Irfi Kassab believed that the
certificate of unanimity was in conflict with the answers containDed in the jury verdict, he was
obligated to request that the jury be polled but did not do so. s In short, there is no conflict in the
answers, but even if there were, Kassab waived it. r
“The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.” Columbia Rio Grande
Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawley, 284 S.W.3d 851, 86l2 (Tex. 2009). When possible, a court “must”
“reasonably construe the [jury’s] findings inM a way that harmonizes them.” USAA Tex. Lloyds Co.
v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 509 (Teox. 2018); Bender v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 600 S.W.2d 257,
260 (Tex. 1980). Failure to reconccile answers in favor of the jury’s verdict when possible is
reversible error. Luna v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 724 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex. 1987). Even
where the jury findings are ambiguous or unclear, the court must try to interpret the findings so as
to uphold the verdict.  Jackson v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 689 S.W.2d 408, 412 (Tex. 1985). When
a party contends cthat a jury’s award of exemplary damages is not supported by a unanimous jury
finding, it is reviewed as a “no evidence” point. Redwine v. Peckinpaugh, 535 S.W.3d 44, 50 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.).
Here, it is clearly apparent that the jury made the required unanimous findings to support
the award of exemplary damages. First, the fact that the jury answered “Yes” in response to
Question 17 in-and-of-itself shows that its finding was unanimous because the Court instructed
the jury that it could only answer “Yes” to Question 17 if its answer was “unanimous.” See Charge
of the Court, p. 24. Second, the fact that the jury awarded exemplary damages in response to
Question 19 also shows that the jury answered Question 17 unanimously. Id. at p. 26. The Court
instructed the jury that it could only answer Question 19 if it “unanimously anskwered ‘Yes’ to
Question No. 17 or Question No. 18.” Id. The jury did not answer Question 1l8. Id. at p. 25. But
the jury answered Question 19 and found that an award of exemplary cdamages of $3,000,000
against Kassab was warranted. Id. at p. 26. Given the Court’s instrucstions, the jury could not have
answered Question 19 unless it unanimously answered “Yes” tos Question 17. See Bruce v. Oscar
Renda Contracting, 657 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. filed) (“Because the jury
was instructed to only answer the gross negligence question, and the exemplary damages award
question if unanimity was reached, we must presume it did so by following the instructions.”).
Kassab’s argument requires the Couart to presume that the jury ignored the Court’s
instructions in response to multiple questions, which would be an improper and impermissible
presumption. Columbia Rio Grande eHealthcare, L.P., 284 S.W.3d at 862 (“The jury is presumed
to have followed the court’s instrufctions.”). Specifically, Kassab’s argument that the jury’s answer
to Question 17 was not unanyimous because the presiding juror appears to have inadvertently failed
to sign the certificate oCf unanimity for the question is belied by the jury’s affirmative answers to
Questions 17 and 19 in accordance with the Court’s instructions.
The Daflflas Court of Appeals confronted this issue in the “pet. denied” case of Stover v.
ADM MilUling Co., No. 05-17-00778-CV, 2018 WL 6818561 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 28, 2018,
pet. denied). The court of appeals was urged to find that the jury’s award of exemplary damages
was not supported “because the findings on the threshold jury question nos. 5 and 6 were not
certified to be unanimous.” 2018 WL 6818561, at *12. But the court of appeals properly rejected
that argument and found that “the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s award of
exemplary damages” because the jury later unanimously answered questions predicated on
unanimous answers to question nos. 5 and 6. See id. The court of appeals held:
[W]e address Holmes and Holmes Law's argument that the evidence wask legally
insufficient to support the jury's award of exemplary damages in jury qeuestion no.
17 because the findings on the threshold jury question nos. 5 and l6 were not
certified to be unanimous. In support of their argument, they point to the verdict
certificate where the jury stated, “Our verdict is not unanimous. Ecleven of us have
agreed to each and every answer and have signed the certificate rbelow.” However,
the record also contains an additional certificate signed by thse presiding juror that
states, ""I certify that the jury was unanimous in answering QDuestion No. 15, 16, 17,
and 18. All 12 of us agreed to each of the answers."" In sjury question nos. 5 and 6,
the jury found Holmes and Holmes Law liable for comsmon law fraud and statutory
fraud. The instructions for those jury questions did not require a unanimous
verdict. However, both jury question nos. 15 (clrear and convincing evidence of
fraud and statutory fraud) and 16 (malice) instructed the jury to answer those
questions “only if [] [they] [] unanimously answered 'Yes' to any part of
Question No. 5 [common law fraud] or if [they] unanimously answered 'Yes'
to any part of Question No. 6 [statutolry fraud] and Question No. 7 [actual
awareness].” Further, jury questioan no. 17 (exemplary damages) instructed
the jury that they should only aMnswer the question “if [they] unanimously
answered 'Yes' to Question 15 or Question No. 16.” The jury is presumed to
have followed the trial court's instructions. See, e.g., Columbia Rio Grande
Healthcare L.P. v. Hawley, 2e84 S.W.3d 851, 862 (Tex. 2009). We conclude the
evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's award of exemplary damages
in jury question no. 17. Hfolmes and Holmes Law's issue 3.3(a) is decided against
them.
Id. (emphasis added).
Stover is directly on point and directly rejects the argument that Kassab makes now.
Kassab reclies on the “no pet.” case of Redwine v. Peckinpaugh, which is different for many
reasons. 535 S.W.3d 44, 50 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.). In Redwine, the jury had a single
cause of action for defamation before it. Redwine, 535 S.W.3d at 47. While it answered an
exemplary damages question that it was instructed to only answer if unanimous, its answer was
directly in conflict with its certification that the entire verdict was otherwise not unanimous. See
id. at 51–52. The court then polled the jury, something that Kassab did not request here, and
confirmed the lack of unanimity. See id.
As explained in Bruce v. Oscar Renda Contracting, because Redwine dealt with a single
cause of action giving rise to liability, the certification of non-unanimity was in ckonflict with an
award of exemplary damages. 657 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tex. App.—El Paso 202l2, pet. filed). The
court in Bruce contrasted the facts in Redwine with a set of facts similcar to those in this case,
saying: “We conclude that the jury’s certification at issue here does nsot have the same conclusive
effect as it did in Redwine, given that this jury was permitted tos answer several questions by a 10
to 2 vote, unless otherwise instructed to only answer upon reaching unanimity.” Id. (emphasis
added). In other words, because not all of the verdict needed to be unanimous, a general certificate
of non-unanimity is not in conflict with an award of exemplary damages.
Furthermore, in this case, like in Staover, the jury unanimously answered a question
(Question 19) that was predicated on a unanimous answer to Question 17 after answering Question
17. Like in Stover, the jury here couled not have answered the latter question (Question 19) unless
it unanimously answered the earflier question at issue (Question 17). That was not the case in
Redwine. y
Again, the jury Cis presumed to have followed the Court’s instructions, and the Court “must”
“reasonably construe the [jury’s] findings in a way that harmonizes them.” USAA Tex. Lloyds Co.,
545 S.W.3d at f5f09. Given the jury’s responses to Questions 17 and 19, and the Court’s related
unanimityU instructions, the only reasonable construction of the jury’s findings is that the jury was
unanimous in answering “Yes” to Question 17. Because there is evidence that the jury
unanimously answered all exemplary damages questions, the Court “must” give effect to the jury’s
answers and enter a judgment awarding exemplary damages. See id.; Bender v. S. Pac. Transp.
Co., 600 S.W.2d at 260.
Finally, although no conflict in the jury’s answers exists, Kassab’s failure to raise this issue
before the jury was discharged waived the alleged conflict that Kassab claims nowk. Texas law is
settled that “to preserve error based on fatally conflicting jury answers, partlies must raise that
objection before the trial court discharges the jury.” USAA Texas Lloydcs, 545 S.W.3d 479, 518
(emphasis added) (discussing how Rule 295 requires that potential csonflicts in the verdict should
be resolved by the trial court giving instructions to the jury beforse the jury is dismissed). The party
relying on the alleged conflict to avoid the effect of answers awarding exemplary damages, Kassab
here, has the burden to timely object. Id. at 509 (citing Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249, 256
(Tex. 2014)).
The rule is the same whether the comaplaint regarding the jury’s answers is that they are
incomplete or that they are in fatal conflict; the objection must be raised before the jury is
discharged in order to afford the triael court the opportunity to correct the error. Id. As further
stated by the Supreme Court of Tfexas in USAA Texas Lloyds:
[Texas Rule of Civyil Procedure] 295 provides the procedure for resolving
incomplete and nonresponsive jury verdicts as well as those containing conflicting
answers. Tex. RC. Civ. P. 295. Addressing incomplete verdicts, we have long held
that a judgment will not be reversed ""unless the party who would benefit from
answers to the issues objects to the incomplete verdict before the jury is
dischargecd, making it clear that he desires that the jury redeliberate on the issues
or that tfhfe trial court grant a mistrial."" Fleet v. Fleet, 711 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex. 1986);
see also Continental Cas. Co. v. Street, 379 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tex. 1964) (holding
paUrty failed to preserve error because he ""did not object to the acceptance of the
jury verdict as incomplete, and thus by timely objection afford the trial court the
opportunity, before the jury was discharged, of correcting the error (if such it was)
of accepting the verdict with the issues unanswered""). We conclude that the same
error-preservation requirement applies when a party complains of a judgment
based on conflicting jury answers.
Id. at 519 (emphasis added).
Had Kassab timely raised the alleged conflict prior to the jury being discharged, Rule 295
would have resolved any confusion regarding how many jurors joined in answering Question 17.
That is exactly what happened in Bryan v. Papalia, 542 S.W.3d 676, 692–93 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2017, rev. granted, judgm’t vacated w.r.m.), where the Fourteenth Ckourt of Appeals
addressed the issue at length as follows: l
When the jury originally returned its verdict, the verdict form shocwed that the jury
had answered “yes” as to Question 1 for Papalia and “yes” as tro Question 2. The
trial court had instructed the jury that it could answer “yes” sto Question 2 only if
all jurors agreed on that answer and only if all jurors had agDreed to answer “yes” in
Question 1 as to Papalia. Despite this instruction, the sju  ry’s verdict certificate
originally showed that only ten jurors had agreed tso all of the jury’s answers
so only ten had agreed to answer Question 1 “yes” for Papalia and to answer
Question 2 “yes,” but, in light of the trial court’sr instructions in Question 2, the
jury’s affirmative answer to Question 2 indicated that the jury had answered
these two questions unanimously. 
After discussing this situation with coulnsel and polling the jury, the trial court
explained to the jury in open court and on the record that the verdict form contained
an ambiguity because the jury was iMnstructed to answer “yes” to Question 2 only if
all jurors agreed to that answer, but the jurors indicated in the verdict certificate
that only ten jurors agreed to thios answer. The trial court then directed the jury to
return to the jury room and clearify on the verdict certificate whether the answer to
Question 2 was unanimous . c. . . The jury later returned with an amended verdict
certificate indicating tfhat the answers to the first two questions were
unanimous and that ten jurors agreed to the answers to Questions 3 through 9 . . .
Papalia argued in thpe JNOV Motion that the trial court should disregard the answer
to Question 2 because only ten jurors agreed to that answer and signed the original
verdict certificate. Though it is true that only ten jurors signed the original verdict
certificate, aafter the jury returned to the jury room, the jury amended the verdict
certificatec to show that all jurors agreed to the answers to the first two questions. In
this contfext, the original verdict certificate does not provide a basis for disregarding
the juory’s answer to Question 2.
Bryan, 542 S.W.3d at 692–93 (emphasis added).
Kassab waived the right to complain about any alleged conflict in the jury’s answers, even
though there is no conflict, by not timely objecting before the jury was discharged. There is no
error in the Court’s judgment.
III. Pohl Is Entitled to Recover His Actual Losses and Damages Under TUTSA.
Kassab requests the Court to reform the judgment to exclude Pohl’s damages that are based
on attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with separate proceedings based on two grounds. First,
Kassab argues that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable under TUTSA. See Motionk to Modify, pp.
5–10. Second, Kassab argues that the attorneys’ fees incurred in connectilon with grievance
proceedings cannot be recovered. Id., pp. 10-11. Neither argument is cocrrect.
A. Pohl’s TUTSA Losses And Damages Are Recoverasble.
Despite having previously asserted the same rejected arguments on multiple prior
occasions, Kassab continues to claim that portions of Pohl’s edamages are not recoverable because
they are based on attorneys’ fees incurred in separate pr u oceedings.1 See Motion to Modify at 5–
11. Kassab was wrong before, and he remains wronng now. It is true that attorneys’ fees typically
do not constitute actual damages when incurrerd in the same lawsuit. But attorneys’ fees from
separate proceedings—incurred as the result of wrongful conduct of the defendant—do constitute
actual damages in a subsequent lawsueit and are recoverable. See, e.g., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld, LLP v. National Developfment & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106, 119-22 (Tex. 2009).
Kassab conflates these distinyct scenarios in arguing otherwise.
TUTSA authorizes the recovery of damages, including “actual loss caused by
misappropriation.” a TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.004(a). On its face, the plain meaning
of “actual loss” fis broad and encompasses consequential losses such as attorney’s fees in separate
proceedings. This broad definition of damages is not surprising because a “‘flexible and
imaginative’ approach is applied to the calculation of damages in misappropriation-of-trade-
1 See, e.g., Kassab’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 76–80, filed August 29, 2022; Pohl’s Response
in Opposition to Kassab’s Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment, filed September 12, 2022; see also Court’s
October 31, 2022, order denying Kassab’s motion for summary judgment. Pohl incorporates his prior briefing on this
issue by reference.
secrets cases.” Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699, 710 (Tex. 2016). To the
extent that the Court wishes to look at persuasive authority from other states, they too have
recognized that the definition of “actual loss” is broad and encompasses tort damages where a
“plaintiff must prove that its loss was caused by the defendant’s violation.” Skee World Wide
Prosthetic Supply, Inc. v. Mikulsky, 640 N.W.2d 764, 770 (Wis. 2002); Dunsmlore & Associates,
Ltd. v. D'Alessio, No. 409906, 2000 WL 124995, at *10 (Conn. Super. Cct. Jan. 6, 2000) (“Actual
loss in this context means the amount of money that the plaintifsf lost from the defendant's
misappropriation; it is measured by how much better off the plasintiff would have been but for the
defendant's misappropriation.”).
The weakness of Kassab’s position is showcased by his misleading citation to caselaw.
Kassab cites to Florida caselaw asserting that “‘actual loss’ means ‘loss of profits, lost customers
or lost market share.’” See Motion to Modifya, p. 5 (citations omitted). While Pohl disputes that
Florida limits actual loss damages to these three categories, if it did, it demonstrates why the Court
should ignore this non-controlling autehority. Moreover, Kassab does not dispute that Texas allows
recovery of damages outside of tfhose three categories of damages. See, e.g., Motion to Modify,
pp. 12-13 (not disputing thaty market value is recoverable as a measure of “actual loss”).
Kassab’s citatioCn to Texas caselaw fares no better. Here, even though the issue concerns
recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred in separate proceedings, Kassab cites multiple cases dealing
with recovery foff attorneys’ fees incurred in the same proceeding.2 See Motion to Modify, p. 7.
2 Lacore Enters., LLC v. Angles, 2023 WL 2607562, *9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 23, 2023, no pet.) (standing for the
non-controversial conclusion that fees from the same lawsuit are not recoverable as damages under the American
rule); O’Neal v. Dale, 2021 WL 210848, *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 21, 2021, no pet.) (standing for the
uncontroversial proposition that fees incurred in the present lawsuit do not typically constitute damages); Woodhaven
Partners, Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., 422 S.W.3d 821, 839 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (“the only
damages stated by appellants consist of legal fees and expenses they incurred in defending against this lawsuit brought
by appellee and in prosecuting their counterclaims.”).
Furthermore, some of the cases do not concern recovery of attorneys’ fees at all,3 and one was
cited for a proposition that was subsequently overruled.4 The Court should not consider Kassab’s
misleading citations.
And even if the Court were not convinced that TUTSA alone authorized kthe recovery of
Pohl’s damages, Pohl’s damages are recoverable under equitable principlesl. See Dixon Fin.
Services, Ltd. v. Chang, 325 S.W.3d 668, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st cDist.] 2010, pet. denied)
(“Equitable principles allow the recovery of attorney’s fees as actuasl damages when a party was
required to prosecute or defend a prior legal action as a conssequence of a wrongful act of the
defendant.”).5
Kassab acknowledges the potential applicability of this equitable doctrine but claims that
Pohl cannot qualify because an equitable doctrine can only apply when the plaintiff is “wholly
innocent” of any wrongdoing. See Motion to Maodify, p. 9. Pohl disputes that the “wholly innocent
party” element is properly part of the tort of another doctrine. Indeed, Kassab himself cites
3 Tana Oil & Gas Corp. v. McoCall, 104 S.W.3d 80, 81 (Tex. 2003) (rejecting argument that parties could recover for
the value of their own timCe because the Court saw “no causal relationship between the tortious interference the
McCalls allege and the only damages they claim.”); Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ray Ferguson Interests, Inc., 2006 WL
648834, *8 (Tex. App.—a lHouston [1st Dist.] Mar. 16, 2006, pet. denied) (finding that a company’s financial loss due
to employees spendingi time on depositions and discovery did not constitute damages in the same lawsuit).
4 See Motion to Mfodify, p. 7 (citing Martin-Simon v. Womack, 68 S.W.3d 793, 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2001, pet. denied) for the proposition that “attorney’s fees are recoverable only when an agreement between the parties
so provides.”). This is in direct conflict with multiple subsequent Supreme Court of Texas cases. See, e.g., Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 299 S.W.3d at 120–21 (finding an award of attorneys’ fees could be proper
even absent an agreement between the parties).
5 Kassab continues to cite inapplicable caselaw throughout. For example, he cites Riner v. Neumann, 353 S.W.3d
312, 323 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) as support for his contention that “[o]ther intermediate courts of appeals
have likewise refused to adopt the tort of another doctrine.” See Motion to Modify, p. 8 n.4. This is false. Riner does
not mention the tort of another doctrine. See generally Riner, 353 S.W.3d 312. Instead, the court in that case declined
to adopt an exception to the American rule prohibiting recovery of attorneys’ fees in the same case absent
authorization. See id. at 322.
10
multiple cases demonstrating that there is no wholly innocent party element to the doctrine.6 See
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 299 S.W.3d at 106; Naschke v. Gulf Coast Conference,
187 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied); Brannan Paving GP, LLC
v. Pavement Markings, Inc., 446 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, petk. denied).
Regardless, however, Kassab is incorrect that the jury found that Plohl’s trade secret
damages were caused by Pohl’s conduct. In response to Question 4—whicch was the proportionate
responsibility question specifically tied to the misappropriation of tsrade secrets claim—the jury
assigned 0% of the responsibility to Pohl. See Ex. A at 10.7 sKassab ignores this question and
instead contends the jury’s answer to Question 3 shows that Pohl is not “wholly innocent.” See
Motion to Modify, p. 9. But Question 3 is not tied to the misappropriation of trade secrets. See
Ex. A at 9. In fact, the jury specifically asked if they should still answer Question 3 even if they
found that no trade secrets existed. With thea agreement of Kassab, the Court instructed the jury
that they should still respond to Question 3 even if they answered “No” to both parts of Question
1 regarding the existence and ownersehip of a trade secret.
The attorneys’ fees that fPohl incurred in separate proceedings as a result of Kassab’s
wrongful conduct are recovyerable as part of Pohl’s “actual loss” in this lawsuit. Kassab’s
arguments otherwise aCre not supported by controlling law. The Court correctly entered judgment
in favor of Pohl for the amount of his “actual loss” found by the jury.
B. fRule 17.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Does Not Apply.
AUs a threshold matter, this lawsuit is not predicated on Kassab filing a grievance or
participating in the grievance process. It is predicated on Kassab’s misappropriation of Pohl’s
6 Further, Kassab’s reliance on the idea of a wholly innocent party exception is not consistent with the history of the
doctrine. See James Michael Stanton, Recovering Attorney’s Fees in Equity Under Texas Law: Why Some Texas
Courts of Appeal Have It Wrong, 29 T. Marshall L. Rev. 243, 278 (2004).
7 This Exhibit A is attached to Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV.
11
trade secrets. For that reason alone, Rule 17.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure does
not apply, and the Court should reject Kassab’s argument otherwise. See Motion to Modify, pp.10-
11.
Regardless, this issue has been briefed extensively before, and Pohl wilkl not repeat the
same arguments now. Pohl incorporates his prior briefing by reference. l See, e.g., Pohl’s
November 30, 2022, Rule 166(g) Motion, pp. 12–14. Bottom line, thec Court properly rejected
Kassab’s arguments on the issue then, and it should reject them agains now.
IV. The Damages Awarded to Pohl Are Not Duplicative. s
Kassab requests the Court to modify the judgment to exclude allegedly duplicative
damages. But the damages are not duplicative. To the contrary, TUTSA expressly authorizes the
recovery of “both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by
misappropriation that is not taken into accou
nt in computing actual loss.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 134A.004(a) (emphasis added). Kassab agrees that the market value damages found
by the jury are “actual loss” damagese. See Motion to Modify, p. 12. Kassab also agrees that the
jury found that he had been unjfustly enriched through his misconduct in the form of avoided
development costs. Id. Andy the jury was specifically instructed that it should “not award any sum
of money on any elemCent if you have otherwise, under some other element in this question,
awarded a sum of maoney for the same loss.” See Charge of the Court, p. 13. Once again, the
Court must prefsume that the jury followed its instructions. Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare,
L.P., 284U S.W.3d at 862.
Additionally, the awards are not duplicative because the jury could have found that the
market value damages compensated Pohl for the loss of value of his trade secrets going forward,
as that value was destroyed or lessened by Kassab’s unlawful use and disclosure of the trade
secrets. The jury also could have found that the market value damages were separate and distinct
12
from the improper benefit Kassab received by avoiding development costs (a) that he otherwise
would have incurred in the past, and (b) that the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act expressly
allowed the jury to consider in addition to actual loss. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
134A.004(a) (“both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrickhment” may be
recovered). l
Finally on this point, the unjust enrichment award could not havce compensated Pohl for
the actual loss associated with the market value of Pohl’s trade secretss because unjust enrichment
is an equitable remedy that disgorges unjust gains instead of cosmpensating for loss. See Nguyen
v. Watts, 605 S.W.3d 761,789 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied) (“Recovery for
unjust enrichment arises from the equitable principle that a person receiving benefits, which were
unjust for him to retain, should make restitution.”) (citing Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc.,
136 S.W.3d 265, 270 (Tex. App.—San Antoniao 2004, pet. denied). Because the jury viewed unjust
enrichment as not being accounted for in its award of “actual loss” damages, and because this
would be reasonable given that an aweard based on unjust enrichment does not seek to redress loss,
the finding is not duplicative undfer TUTSA. Id.
V. Kassab’s Argumenty for Preemption Of Pohl’s “Conspiracy Claim” Is Inapposite
Because Texas Only Recognizes Conspiracy as a “Rule” of Joint and Several
Liability—NotC a Cause of Action.
Kassab arguaes that the Court should disregard the jury’s conspiracy finding and reform the
judgment to elimfinate Kassab’s joint and several liability because he contends that conspiracy is
“either prUeempted by TUTSA or subject to the [statutory] proportionate responsibility scheme.”
See Motion to Modify, p. 13. Yet Kassab cites no binding precedent holding that Pohl’s conspiracy
allegations are improper. The Court should reject Kassab’s arguments.
Based on unpublished federal cases, Kassab claims that “courts have concluded that
Chapter 33’s proportionate responsibility scheme applies to conspiracy claims, rather than joint
13
and several liability.” See id. at 14. But Kassab ignores contrary published Texas caselaw. The
Dallas Court of Appeals recently rejected “the premise that Chapter 33 superseded the rule that
civil conspiracy findings result in joint and several liability.” Guillory v. Dietrich, 598 S.W.3d
284, 296 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet. denied). Other Texas appellate courts hkave reached the
same conclusion. See, e.g., Stephens v. Three Finger Black Shale P’ship, 58l0 S.W.3d 687, 719
(Tex. App.—Eastland 2019, pet. denied) (“[w]e are of the opinion that jcoint and several liability
attaches to a civil conspiracy finding and is not affected by the sproportionate responsibility
statutes.”). s 
Furthermore, in addition to the fact that they do not control this Court, the authorities that
Kassab cites erroneously recognized civil conspiracy as a cause of action rather than a rule of
liability. Indeed, Kassab’s whole argument presupposes that preemption is warranted because
conspiracy is a cause of action to which Cahapter 33 applies. See Motion to Modify, p. 14.
However, the Supreme Court of Texas has clarified that conspiracy is not a cause of action; rather
it is simply a rule of joint liability. Agear Corp. v. Electro Circuits Int'l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136, 142
(Tex. 2019) (“civil conspiracy is fa theory of vicarious liability and not an independent tort”). As
a result, even the reasoning yof the non-controlling authorities that Kassab relies on is misplaced.
Id. C
Notably, Kassab failed to cite any Texas caselaw holding that TUTSA preempts an
allegation of a fcfonspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. The absence of any supporting Texas
caselaw iUs telling. See Motion to Modify, pp. 13–15. Under the facts of this case, there is simply
no basis for preemption. TUTSA provides that it “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and
other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.” TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.007(a) (emphasis added). Conspiracy does not provide a conflicting
14
remedy in this case.8 It merely provides that damages are joint and several. For this reason, Texas
trial courts have continued to submit both TUTSA and conspiracy claims to the jury. See, e.g.,
Whitlock v. CSI Risk Mgmt., LLC, No. 05-19-01297-CV, 2021 WL 1712215, at *13 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Apr. 30, 2021, pet. denied), reh’g denied (June 7, 2021) (holding that the conkspiracy finding
was supported by the underlying tort of misappropriation of trade secrets). l
Pohl’s TUTSA claim provides the remedy—damages for the micsappropriation of Pohl’s
trade secrets. Application of the law of conspiracy simply makes thsat remedy apply jointly and
severally. That is no more objectionable or inconsistent withs TUTSA than application of the
proportionate responsibility statute, which Kassab acknowledges applies. The Court should reject
Kassab’s selective and erroneous invocation of TUTSA preemption.
VI. Pohl Is Entitled to Recover Attorneys’ Fees, and Kassab Is Not Entitled to a Take
Nothing Judgment. l
Kassab argues in the form of an Momnibus point that, because virtually all actual and
exemplary damages awarded by the juory are purportedly improper, Kassab is entitled to a take
nothing judgment because (a) thce applicable settlement credit exceeds Pohl’s recoverable
damages, and therefore (b) Pohl is not a “prevailing party” entitled to recover attorney’s fees under
TUTSA. See Motion to Modify, p. 15. But as we previously explained, Pohl is entitled to recover
both his actual loss and damages for Kassab’s unjust enrichment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE § 134A.004c(a) (“both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment”
may be recovered). Likewise, as we also previously explained, Pohl is entitled to recover the
attorney’s fees that he incurred in separate proceedings due to Kassab’s unlawful conduct as part
8 As an aside, Kassab’s TUTSA expert, Joseph Cleveland, appears to assume that allegations of conspiracy can exist
alongside a TUTSA claim, as he makes no mention of preemption in discussing them in conjunction with each other.
Cf. Joseph F. Cleveland, Jr., J. Heath Coffman, Kevin C. Smith, A Practitioner's Guide to the Texas Uniform Trade
Secrets Act, Tex. J. Bus. L. 1, 16 (2019) (discussing how pleading conspiracy in connection with a TUTSA claim “will
virtually guarantee that the TCPA applies”).
15
of Pohl’s actual loss. Because Pohl is entitled to recover these damages, Kassab’s argument that
exemplary damages must be reduced to reflect Kassab’s desired pruning of actual damages is
meritless.
Pohl’s recoverable actual damages, exclusive of attorney’s fees incurred kin this case and
exemplary damages, total more than $1,400,000.00. They greatly exceed the aplplicable settlement
credit of $765,000.00. Pohl is the “prevailing party” and is entitled toc recover attorney’s fees
incurred in this case under TUTSA, as well as all other damages fousnd by the jury and awarded
by the Court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.005. s 
VII. Kassab’s Great-Weight-and-Preponderance of the Evidence Arguments are
Meritless. r
Lastly, Kassab makes a four-sentence effort to argue that the verdict is against the great
weight and preponderance of the evidence, yet Kalssab fails to discuss any specific evidence. Even
had Kassab adequately briefed this point, aMnd he did not, it should be rejected.
Great-weight-and-preponderancoe arguments come with a heavy burden. See e.g. Harding
v. Lewis, 133 S.W.3d 693, 698 (Texc. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (party asserting great-
weigh-and-preponderance point carries a heavy burden to show that the evidence supporting the
finding is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust). This is because it is the jury’s
exclusive province to determine the weight to be given to testimony and to resolve any conflicts
in the evidence. cHome Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 74 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, no pet.) (a
court should not substitute its evaluation of the evidence for the jury’s unless, based on the
evidence supporting the jury’s answer, the verdict is manifestly unjust).
Here, the jury heard and considered testimonial evidence (both fact and expert) and
documentary evidence supporting the actual damages that Pohl sustained as a result of Kassab’s
16
misconduct, which the jury was entitled to accept or reject. The jury chose to accept this evidence
and, therefore, the verdict and judgment should stand. Id.
As to exemplary damages specifically, the evidence of Kassab’s willful and malicious
misconduct was overwhelming, which perhaps is why Kassab chose not to address kit in the Motion
to Modify. Under the guise of a phony expert witness agreement, Kassab secretlly purchased Pohl’s
client files and trade secrets for his own benefit. Thereafter, Kassab used cthe fruits of the unlawful
purchase to file multiple unsuccessful grievances and lawsuits againsst Pohl for Kassab’s personal
financial gain. And in what can only be described as a maliscious effort to destroy Pohl both
personally and professionally, Kassab publicized one of his grievances against Pohl (which was
ultimately dismissed like all of the others) to the Texas Attorney General, the Harris County
District Attorney, the Houston Chronicle, The Texas Lawyer, and a then-candidate for president
of the State Bar of Texas. Yet Kassab refused ato acknowledge any error or wrongdoing at all, even
denying that he had purchased Pohl’s files after a federal judge found in a written order that he
had. Instead, Kassab purported to jusetify his unlawful conduct by accusing Pohl of wrongdoing—
an accusation that the jury squarefly rejected.
The jury saw througyh Kassab’s unaccountable subterfuge and rejected Kassab’s false
theory of “vigilante” juCstice. Based on substantial and compelling evidence, the jury appropriately
awarded exemplary damages to send a message to Kassab and others like him that such malicious,
willful, and unflafwful conduct will not be tolerated.
TUhe jury’s findings as to both Pohl’s actual damages and exemplary damages are amply
supported by the evidence. Kassab’s great-weight-and-preponderance arguments are meritless.
VIII. Conclusion.
Pohl requests the Court to deny Kassab’s Motion to Modify. Pohl requests any other,
further, or alternative relief to which he is entitled.
17
Dated: February 2, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 r
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250 t
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.ciom
Attorney for Plaintiffs iMichael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copyy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Prorciedure on this 2nd day of February, 2024.
f /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
 Jean C. Frizzell
18
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 84108335
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Pohl's Response to Kassab's Motion to Motdify
Judgment i
Status as of 2/2/2024 4:37 PM CST s
Case Contacts 
Name BarNumber Email g TimestampSubmitted Status
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfaogler@foglerbrar.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10607c900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo 240f03021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre C scott@favrepa.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade a lawyerwade@hotmail.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Non-Party Witnesso Billy Shepherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Non-Party DoUna Pohl DonaLyann@yahoo.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Non-Party Edgar Jaimes edgarsroom@gmail.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Kevin Dubose 6150500 kdubose@adjtlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Marisa Barrera Cruz Hurd 24041157 mhurd@adjtlaw.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez andrea@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Lance Kassab lance@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
David Kassab david@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 84108335
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Pohl's Response to Kassab's Motion to Motdify
Judgment i
Status as of 2/2/2024 4:37 PM CST s
Case Contacts 
Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassagb.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
D Kassab david@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Kelly Skelton recaeption@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Thallia Malespin tmalespin@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Misty Davis c mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Harris Wells f hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
David Kassab  david@kassab.law 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT
Harris Wells C hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 2/2/2024 4:20:58 PM SENT"
57,2023-08-14,RSP,Kassab,Response to Pohl Barratry MSJ,Kassab Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses,"Filed August 14, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Kassab responds to Pohl's Rule 166(g) pretrial motion seeking to exclude evidence of barratry and eliminate ten of Kassab's affirmative defenses. Kassab argues barratry evidence is central to both Pohl's claims and Kassab's defenses, and that Rule 166(g) is procedurally improper for this purpose.",MSJ-3,N/A,Phase 4,2023-08-14_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-Partial-MSJ_FILED.pdf,Deny Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants,"8/13/2023 12:21 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 78474030
By: Bonnie Lugo
Filed: 8/14/2023 12:00 AM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§ k
§ e
SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICCIAL DISTRICT
THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S RULE 166(g) tMOTION
Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.
d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) files this Reseponse to Plaintiffs’ Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC’s (“Pohul”) Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry
Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants (“the
Motion”), and in support thereof, woulda show the following.
SUMMARY
Pohl asks the Court to rulee that the issue of whether Pohl committed barratry
is irrelevant and should be efxcluded from evidence. Pohl is so concerned about this
issue that he has made it the subject of several motions seeking similar relief. But
barratry is central not only to Kassab’s defenses; it is central to Pohl’s own claims.
As a preliiminary matter, Pohl’s latest motion is procedurally defective. Rule
166(g) is noot intended as a substitute for normal summary judgment practice. Indeed,
Pohl previously moved for summary judgment on Kassab’s affirmative defenses, later
withdrawing his request to have his summary judgment motion heard. The new
Motion improperly tries to backdoor the same relief.
More substantively, Pohl’s barratry is relevant to virtually every issue in the
case. Take his trade secret claim. He must prove that he is the “rightful, legal, or
equitable” owner of the alleged secrets. If Pohl himself obtained the alleged secrets
illegally, he cannot enjoy the benefits of the trade secret statute. Moreover, for Pohl
to recover his attorneys’ fees on his trade secret claim, he must provek “willful and
malicious misappropriation.” In other words, Pohl’s claim dependsC on Kassab’s state
of mind. Kassab is entitled to prove that his belief about Pohl’s barratry was well-
founded. i
Barratry is also directly linked to Pohl’s claim to recover his fees for defending
the barratry suits. Pohl claims those fees as damages for misappropriation of trade
secrets. How can he seek to recover fees for defending the barratry suits without
talking about the claims in those suits? Iln addition, Kassab asserts proportionate
responsibility for these alleged damaMges; he gets to demonstrate that Pohl incurred
those fees not because of any alleged misappropriation of trade secrets but because
Pohl engaged in barratry. Bariratry therefore hits the heart of the cause of Pohl’s own
damages.
Barratry is releovant to several of Kassab’s defenses, too. As we will explain,
the defenses of illlegality, unlawful acts, attorney immunity, judicial privilege, and
others all brinig the facts surrounding the barratry into the picture.
We understand why Pohl strives so mightily to exclude evidence of his own
contributing conduct. It mortally wounds his claims. But the facts relating to the
barratry underlie and intertwine with all the claims and defenses. The Motion must
be denied.
RESPONSE TO RULE 166(g) MOTION
I. Pohl’s belated use of Rule 166(g) as a last-minute effort to decide
the merits of Kassab’s affirmative defenses is improper.
Rule 166(g) provides that, “to assist in the disposition of thee case without
undue expense or burden to the parties, the court may in its discretion direct the
attorneys for the parties and the parties … to appear beforte it for a conference to
consider … [t]he identification of legal matters to be ruled on or decided by the
court[.]” TEX. R. CIV. P. 166(g). “The pretrial confereence contemplated by this rule
should not be used to determine issues involvinug controverted facts. It is a tool to
‘dispose of issues which are founded upon admitted or undisputed facts.’” McCreight
v. City of Cleburne, 940 S.W.2d 285, 288 a(Tex. App.—Waco 1997, writ denied) (quoting
Provident Life & Acci. Ins. Co. v. Hazlitt, 216 S.W.2d 805, 807 (1949)). Thus, “[t]here
is nothing in the rule authorizineg the trial court to determine the merits of the issues
raised by the pleadings at a pfre-trial hearing, where the parties do not agree to limit
the issues, and the issues raised by the pleadings are not disposed of by admissions.”
Mason v. Tobin, 408 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1966, no writ).
That is eixactly what Pohl wants the Court to do here; obtain summary-
judgment lioke dismissal of Kassab’s affirmative defenses (without providing Kassab
the requisite summary judgment notice), arguing that Kassab’s unlawful acts defense
is precluded under Texas law,1 that the defense of justification is “not available as a
1 Motion, at § B(1).
matter of law,”2 that immunity under the rules of disciplinary procedure does not
apply,3 and that “unclean hands is not a defense to legal claims.”4 Notably, Pohl
already sought to dismiss these defenses via traditional and no-evidence summary
judgment.5 Kassab, along with other defendants, responded.6 Althoughk Pohl set that
motion for hearing, he voluntarily withdrew the notice after KassabC filed his response
and it was never reset. Pohl had his opportunity to obtain dismissal on Kassab’s
affirmative defenses, but he squandered it. Pohl should noit now, at this late in the
game, be permitted to misuse Rule 166(g) as an untimely means to decide the merits
of Kassab’s affirmative defenses. See Mason, 408 S.W.2d at 245.
II. Evidence of Pohl’s barratrous conduct is directly relevant to
Pohl’s claims and his own proportionate responsibility.
Pohl’s Rule 166(g) motion is basead entirely on the false premise that “whether
barratry occurred” is “not legally relevant to the material issues in this case[.]”7
Whether Pohl committed barratery is relevant to establishing Pohl’s own claims, and
his own proportionate responfsibility.
Pohl has pursued claims under TUTSA, which requires a person claiming
ownership of a trade secret to demonstrate “rightful, legal, or equitable” title to the
information. Se
ei TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(3-a). Yet, a person cannot
2 Motion, at § B(2).
3 Motion, at §§ B(3).
4 Motion, at § B(4).
5 See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses that
Seek to Relitigate Failed Barratry Claims Against Plaintiffs and No-Evidence Motion for Summary
Judgment on the Remaining Affirmative Defenses, filed on August 29, 2022.
6 See Kassab’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary
Judgment, filed September 12, 2022.
7 Motion, p. 2.
own or enforce rights in a trade secret for information about ongoing illegal activities.
See Alderson v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1200 (C.D. Cal. 2010), aff'd, 686
F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2012). In Alderson, the Court recognized that a trade secret “only
exists if the secret-holder takes reasonable efforts to maintain the skecrecy of the
information” and that “element simply cannot be satisfied with respCect to information
about ongoing illegality.” Id. The Alderson court noted that its “conclusion is
consistent with the underlying justifications of trade secretis law, which include ‘the
maintenance of standards of commercial ethics’” because “‘[c]ommercial ethics’ are
not maintained if businesses are able to conceal illegality.” Id. (quoting Kewanee Oil
Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 481-482 (1974)).
Therefore, Kassab is entitled to estalblish that Pohl acquired the information
he claims to be confidential trade secrMets – client lists and attorney-client contracts –
through barratry by unlawfully paying Precision and its members to develop the lists
of potential clients and solicitiing them to hire Pohl. If the client lists and contracts
were procured by barratry, then Pohl cannot be a legal, equitable or rightful owner
of the information. TEoX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(3-a). In that case, Pohl
cannot show he mlade reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the information
because commiercial ethics are not maintained if Pohl is able to conceal his illegal
barratry. Alderson, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1200; A. Benjamini, Inc. v. Dickson, 2 S.W.3d
611, 613-14 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (a person who obtains
property by illegal means, such as theft, “acquires no title in the property”); Dynamic
Prod. v. Cima Energy Ltd., No. 4:17-CV-01032, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66987, at *21
(S.D. Tex. 2018) (company who obtained oil production by trespass was not rightful
owner of property).
Pohl also seeks attorney’s fees as damages under a “tort of another” theory.
This theory has never been embraced by the Texas Supreme Court ankd it has been
flatly rejected by the Houston Court of Appeals. Akin, Gump, StrauCss, Hauer & Feld,
L.L.P. v. Nat'l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106, 119 (Tex. 2009); Naschke v.
Gulf Coast Conference, 187 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Tex. App.—Hiouston [14th Dist.] 2006,
pet. denied). But to the extent it applies, it is an equitable doctrine that requires the
claimant to be an innocent party. See Brannan Paving GP, LLC v. Pavement
Markings, Inc., 446 S.W.3d 14, 27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, pet. denied).
Whether Pohl committed barratry is rellevant to establishing that he is not an
innocent party, and negating Pohl’s cMlaimed damages under this theory. See Per-Se
Techs., Inc. v. Sybase, Inc., No. 01-03-01293-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5096, at *24
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Disti.] June 30, 2005, no pet.) (declining to decide whether
exception applied, but holding even if it did, the plaintiff “is not a wholly innocent
party” because the satoellite litigation resulted due to their conduct).
Furthermorle, Pohl seeks his legal fees under TUTSA and exemplary damages,8
and can get th
iem only if he proves willful and malicious misappropriation. TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.004(b), 134A.005(3). That means Pohl must establish that
Kassab engaged in “intentional misappropriation resulting from the conscious
disregard of the rights of the owner of the trade secret.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
8 First Amended Petition, ¶¶ 46-47.
§ 134A.002(7). Thus, Kassab’s intent is highly relevant. If Kassab believed that Pohl
had committed barratry by paying Precision to acquire the information and,
therefore, the information was property of Precision or Pohl had no legal, rightful or
equitable title to the information, then Pohl cannot establish willful aknd malicious
misappropriation. Thus, whether Pohl committed barratry – orC at least whether
Kassab had a belief that Pohl did – is directly relevant to Pohl’s own affirmative
claims. i
Moreover, whether Pohl committed barratry is directly relevant to his
proportionate responsibility. Under the statute, “a claimant may not recover damages
if his percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE § 33.001. The trier of fact must consilder whether Pohl caused or contributed to
causing “in any way the harm for wMhich recovery of damages is sought[.]” Id. at §
33.003(a)(1). Here, the harm for which recovery of damages is sought is the purported
taking or misuse of Pohl’s allegiedly confidential information by Precision and others,
and the alleged sale of that information to Kassab who, on behalf of his clients,
brought barratry claimos against Pohl.9 Pohl seeks more than $2.4 million as “actual
loss damages” thalt include “the reasonable fees and expenses [Pohl] incurred in
defending [thei] underlying barratry and grievance proceedings that were made
possible through the [alleged] misappropriation of Pohl’s trade secrets” plus the “the
amount paid [by Pohl] under a settlement agreement [with Precision in the
Mississippi litigation, which was $1 million] that should have prevented the further
9 First Amended Petition, at ¶ 29.
[alleged] misappropriation of Pohl’s trade secrets.”10 Whether Pohl committed the
barratry which gave rise to the barratry claim is relevant to establishing that Pohl is
“in any way” responsible for the harm for which recovery of damages is sought. Id. at
§ 33.003(a)(1). k
III. Evidence of Pohl’s barratrous conduct is directly rCelevant to
Kassab’s affirmative defenses. 
Whether barratry occurred is also relevant to sevteral of Kassab’s live
affirmative defenses for which Kassab will be requesting jury findings at trial.11
Recognizing this fact, Pohl argues that “[a]s a matteer of law, ten of those defenses do
not exist or do not apply in this case.”12 Thus, Puohl asks the Court to “find that the
ten defenses … are not legally viable and will not be considered at trial.”13 The Court
should not consider Pohl’s untimely raequest for summary judgment on Kassab’s
affirmative defenses disguised a Rule 166(g) motion. Mason, 408 S.W.2d at 245.
Regardless, Pohl cannot establiseh that Kassab’s affirmative defenses fail as a matter
of law.14
A. Whether Pohl committed barratry is directly relevant to
many oof Kassab’s defenses which Pohl has failed to
conclusively negate.
The unlawiful acts rule provides that “no action will lie to recover a claim for
10 ExhibitU 1, Pohl’s Amended Response to Disclosures, at 4.
11 Exhibit 2, Kassab’s Proposed Jury Charge.
12 Motion, p. 8.
13 Motion, p. 8.
14 In his Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed on August 29, 2022, Kassab demonstrated
that Pohl’s unlawful acts, criminal acts and the in pari delicto doctrines preclude Pohl’s claims as a
matter of law. Kassab incorporates that argument and evidence as if set forth verbatim herein. Kassab
also incorporates the argument and evidence relating to the unlawful acts doctrine (including illegal
or criminal acts or in pari delicto) set forth on pages 9-14 of Nicholson’s Response to Plaintiffs’
Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on September 12, 2022.
damages, if to establish it the plaintiff requires aid from an illegal transaction, or is
under the necessity of showing or in any manner depending upon an illegal act to
which he is a party.” Gulf, C. & S. F. RY. Co. v. Johnson, 621, 9 S.W. 602, 602-03
(1888). “Courts have interpreted this defense to mean that if the killegal act is
inextricably intertwined with the claim and the alleged damageCs would not have
occurred but for the illegal act, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover as a matter of
law.” Sharpe v. Turley, 191 S.W.3d 362, 366 (Tex. App.—Diallas 2006, pet. denied).
Courts have applied the doctrine without a conviction of a crime so long as “the
unlawful act barring the plaintiff's claim was in fact illegal conduct.” McNally v.
McNally, No. 02-18-00142-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 7211, at *27 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Sep. 3, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.l).
Pohl argues that the unlawful Macts doctrine is preempted by the proportionate
responsibility statute, relying on Dugger v. Arredondo, 408 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 2013).15
But even Dugger recognized ithat unlawful acts doctrine still applied in certain
contexts, like legal malpractice cases. Id. at 833 (“While some courts of appeals have
extended that reasonoing to civil defendants bringing legal malpractice actions, we
have not directly laddressed that issue.”). Thus, the Court expressly “limit[ed] the
holding in th[ait] case to personal injury and wrongful death cases.” Id. at 833.
This is not a personal injury or wrongful death case; it is a conversion and theft
of trade secret case. In contexts outside the wrongful death and personal injury
context, Texas courts have refused to allow a plaintiff to profit from his or her own
15 Motion, p. 9.
illegal conduct. See Sharpe, 191 S.W.3d at 366 (precluding a plaintiff from recovering
from an attorney after a finding that summary judgment evidence established that
the plaintiff's conduct forming the basis of the underlying civil fraud claim was
unlawful). Texas courts have specifically refused to enforce agreemenkts relating to
the unlawful solicitation of clients under the unlawful acts ruCle. See Luong v.
McAllister, No. 01-17-00198-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5998, at *7-8 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 2, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Aind when non-contractual
claims are inextricably intertwined with contracts or agreements to do illegal acts,
Texas courts have dismissed those claims as well because “no action may be
predicated upon an admittedly unlawful act of the party asserting it.” Denson v.
Dallas Cnty. Credit Union, 262 S.W.3d 84l6, 855 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)
(barring “claims arising in tort becMause they are inextricably intertwined with
[plaintiff’s] illegal contract to sell automobiles in Dallas County without a license.”);
Villanueva v. Gonzalez, 123 S.iW.3d 461, 463 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.)
(holding claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud failed because they arose out
of an illegal contract tohat violated the occupation code).
Pohl arguesl that these doctrines do not apply because he “has not asserted any
contract claimi against Kassab, nor do any of his tort claims involve enforcing the
terms of an allegedly illegal contract.”16 But Pohl’s claims are inextricably
intertwined with his unlawful agreement with Precision. Pohl alleges that he
contracted with Precision to “to provide public relations services … to screen and
16 Motion, p. 10.
10
liaise with Pohl’s clients/prospective clients” – e.g. commit barratry – during which
time “Precision gained access to Pohl’s [allegedly] confidential and proprietary
information and property, included trade secret materials” – e.g. the client lists and
contracts that Precision accumulated during its unlawful solicitation ekfforts.17 Pohl
alleges that Precision “illegally misappropriated” this information Cand then “secretly
sold” the information to Kassab,18 who then “solicited [Pohl’s] clients/prospective
clients to act as plaintiffs … to bring cases against Pohl for ailleged barratry and other
claims.”19 Pohl’s claims fail because “they are inextricably intertwined with [Pohl’s]
illegal contract” with Precision. Denson, 262 S.W.3d at 855.
B. Whether Pohl committed barratry is directly relevant to
Kassab’s justification and immunity defenses which Pohl
either fails to address or falils to negate.
Recognizing that Kassab’s defeMnse of justification renders evidence relating to
Pohl’s acts of barratry relevant, Pohl contends that justification “is not a defense to
Pohl’s claims”20 because it is ani affirmative defense to a claim of tortious interference
with contract.”21 But just because the defense is commonly applied to one type of
claim does not mean, oas Pohl contends, that it is “not a recognized defense” to other
types of claims, sulch as theft of trade secrets or conversion. In fact, justification is
common appliied in conversion cases because the alleged theft must occur “without
justification.” Morey v. Page, 802 S.W.2d 779, 787 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, no writ).
17 First Amended Petition, ¶ 20.
18 First Amended Petition, ¶ 21.
19 First Amended Petition, ¶ 29.
20 Motion, p. 10.
21 Motion, p. 11.
11
Regardless, Pohl conflates Kassab’s justification defense with the defense of
immunity or privilege – which Pohl has failed to negate – and which further renders
facts relating to Pohl’s barratry relevant to this litigation.
1. Barratry is relevant to Kassab’s defense of privkilege.
The Texas Supreme Court has often looked to the RestaCtement (Third) of
Unfair Competition and Restatement of Torts when defining Texas law governing
trade secret claims. See Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Cox Teix. Newspapers, L.P., 343
S.W.3d 112, 126 n.5 (Tex. 2011); In re Union Pac. R.R. Co., 294 S.W.3d 589, 592 (Tex.
2009). With respect to the issue of privilege, that Restatement provides:
The existence of a privilege to disclose another's trade secret depends
upon the circumstances of the particular case, including the nature of
the information, the purpose of the dlisclosure, and the means by which
the actor acquired the informaation. A privilege is likely to be
recognized, for example, inM connection with the disclosure of
information that is relevant to public health or safety, or to the
commission of a crime or tort, or to other matters of substantial
public concern. e
REST. 3D OF UNFAIR COMPEOT f ITION, § 40, cmt. c (emphasis added); RESTATEMENT OF
TORTS § 757 cmt. d
(“A privilege to disclose may also be given by the law,
independently of the other's consent, in order to promote some public interest.”). The
Reporters’ Notesi to Section 40 indicate that “the policies underlying the privilege are
similar to tohose supporting the numerous state and federal ‘whistleblower’ statutes
that prohibit retaliatory personnel actions by employers against employees who
disclose violations to public officials.” REST. 3D OF UNFAIR COMPETITION, § 40,
Reporters' Notes, cmt. c.
Here, even if the list identifying Pohl’s attorney-client agreements and lists
12
identifying Pohl’s clients and prospective clients are his trade secrets (and they are
not), and even if Pohl kept that information confidential (and he did not), Kassab was
privileged to obtain the information and use it to notify Pohl’s former clients or
prospective clients that the way they were solicited to hire Pohl waks illegal and
unethical. REST. 3D OF UNFAIR COMPETITION, § 40, cmt. c; PhiladeClphia Plaza-Phase
II v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Assoc. No. 322, 2002 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS
13, 2002 WL 1472338, at *5 (Pa. Com. Pl. May 30, 2002) i(citing Section 757 of the
Restatement of Torts to conclude that purported disclosure of trade secrets was
“proper, if not privileged.”); Sys. Operations, Inc. v. Sci. Games Dev. Corp., 425 F.
Supp. 130, 136 (D.N.J. 1977) (stating that “disclosure of trade secret information may
itself be privileged” and concluding that it lwas).
2. Barratry is relevMant to Kassab’s defenses of attorney
immunity and judicial proceedings privilege.
Kassab is also immune ferom Pohl’s claims under the doctrines of attorney
immunity and the judicial prfoceedings privilege, two defenses raised and established
as a matter of law by Kassab,22 which Pohl fails to address in the instant Motion.
Facts relating to whether Pohl committed barratry are directly relevant to those
defenses. i
Undeor the doctrine of attorney immunity, “an attorney does not have a right of
22 In his Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 8, 2021, Kassab established, as a matter
of law, the attorney immunity defense. In the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed on
August 29, 2022, Kassab established, as a matter of law, the judicial proceedings privilege and
attorney immunity. Kassab incorporates those motions and the evidence attached thereto for all
purposes herein. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 58.
13
recovery, under any cause of action, against another attorney arising from conduct
the second attorney engaged in as part of the discharge of his duties in representing
a party.” Bradt v. West, 892 S.W.2d 56, 72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ
denied) (emphasis added). “[A]n attorney is immune from liability to nkonclients for
conduct within the scope of his representation of his clients.” YounCgkin v. Hines, 546
S.W.3d 675, 681 (Tex. 2018). The inquiry “focuses on the kind of conduct at issue
rather than the alleged wrongfulness of said conduct.” Id.i “That is, a lawyer is no
more susceptible to liability for a given action merely because it is alleged to be
fraudulent or otherwise wrongful.” Id. “Merely labeling an attorney’s conduct
‘fraudulent’ does not and should not remove it from the scope of client representation
or render it ‘foreign to the duties of an attolrney.’” Id. at 483. Even “criminal conduct
is not categorically excepted from the Mprotections of attorney civil immunity when the
conduct alleged is connected with representing a client in litigation.” Bethel v.
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Wiinslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651, 657 (Tex. 2020);
Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Tex. 2015) (“an attorney’s conduct
may be wrongful but sotill fall within the scope of client representation”).
The case Talylor v. Tolbert, 644 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2022) is instructive on why
attorney immuinity applies here. In Taylor, the attorney was accused of violating state
and federal laws prohibiting wiretapping because the attorney obtained and used the
plaintiff’s communications in violation of the statute. Id. at 643. The plaintiff brought
a statutory claim against the attorney which permitted recovery of civil damages. Id.;
see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. § 18A.502. The attorney moved for traditional
14
summary judgment, “arguing she is immune from liability as a matter of law because
the plaintiffs’ claims all stem from her role as an attorney in the modification
proceeding.” Id. at 644. The trial court agreed, but the court of appeals reversed. Id.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals. Id. It concluded thatk the attorney
was, “in all respects, engaging in the office, professional training, sCkill, and authority
of an attorney in the ways that she allegedly used and disclosed the materials her
client provided.” Id. at 649. “Because [the attorney’s] condiuct falls squarely within
the confines of attorney immunity, the alleged criminality or wrongfulness of the
conduct does not perforce preclude its availability as an affirmative defense.” Id. The
court also held that “Texas’s wiretap statute does not expressly repudiate the common
law or the attorney-immunity defense.” Id.l
Here too, Kassab’s conduct whicMh forms the basis of Pohl’s claims falls squarely
within the confines of attorney immunity, regardless of whether it is alleged to have
violated the TUTSA because tihat statute does not expressly repudiate the defense.
Pohl is suing Kassab because he allegedly obtained purportedly stolen information in
violation of the TUTSoA and then “solicited [Pohl’s] clients/prospective clients to act
as plaintiffs … to lbring cases against Pohl for alleged barratry and other claims.”23
The essence ofi Pohl’s claims against Kassab are “that Kassab bought Pohl’s client list
from [Precision] so that Kassab could send advertisements to Pohl’s former clients
and solicit them to become Kassab’s clients in barratry suits against Pohl.” Kassab v.
Pohl, 612 S.W.3d 571, 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied)
23 Amended Petition, ¶ 29.
15
(characterizing Pohl’s claims against Kassab). Pohl even seeks as damages “the
reasonable fees and expenses incurred in defending [the] underlying barratry and
grievance proceedings that were made possible through the misappropriation of
Pohl’s trade secrets.”24 k
Moreover, in this very case, the court of appeals opined tChat “the alleged
purchase of Pohl[’s] client list for those clients’ contact information,
followed by the mailing of attorney advertisementis to those individuals
about specific types of claims they might be able to pursue against a
specifically identified attorney, qualifies as statements or conduct that
arose out of a commercial transaction involving the type of legal services
Kassab provides.” Kassab, 612 S.W.3d atl 578 (emphasis added). The court opined
that, “the intended audience of [KaMssab’s alleged] statement or conduct were
individuals with potential legal claims who Kassab sought to represent in
barratry suits against Pohli.” Id. at 579 (emphasis added).
The acquisition of clients and filing of lawsuits are actions taken “to facilitate
the rendition of legalo services.” Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at 682; Clayton v. Oldcastle
Materials Tex., Incl., No. 09-18-00063-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1112, at *12, 15 (Tex.
App.—Beaumoint Feb. 14, 2019, no pet.) (applying attorney immunity to attorney’s
conduct which included “selling his legal services to the City as a potential client” and
subsequent conduct which “occurred in the course of his undertaking to represent”
those clients). The fact that Kassab is alleged to have committed the misconduct prior
24 Exhibit 1, Pohl’s Amended Responses to Disclosures, p. 4.
16
to any litigation is immaterial because “attorney immunity applies to claims based
on conduct outside the litigation context[.]” Haynes & Boone, LLP v. NFTD, LLC, 631
S.W.3d 65, 78-79, 81 (Tex. 2021); Cantey Hanger, 467 S.W.3d at 485 (concluding that
attorney was immune from conduct that occurred after litigation had enkded). In other
words, Pohl’s characterization of Kassab’s activities as part of a buCsiness transaction
that occurred prior to litigation does not negate attorney immunity because Kassab
engaged in the conduct as part of his ultimate provision of liegal services to his client.
See Haynes & Boone, 631 S.W.3d at 78-79, 81 (applying attorney immunity to lawyer
conduct committed as part of business transaction). Indeed, in this case, the court of
appeals concluded that all of Kassab’s conduct for which Pohl complains “arose out
of a commercial transaction involvinlg the type of legal services Kassab
provides.” Kassab, 612 S.W.3d at 57M8 (emphasis added).
Pohl also fails to address or negate the judicial proceedings privilege. “The
judicial-proceedings privilege iis an absolute privilege that covers any statement made
by the judge, jurors, counsel, parties or witnesses, and attaches to all aspects of the
proceedings, includinog statements made in open court, pre-trial hearings,
depositions, affidavlits and any of the pleadings or other papers in the case.” Landry's,
Inc. v. Animali Legal Def. Fund, 631 S.W.3d 40, 46 (Tex. 2021) (internal quotations
omitted). “The judicial-proceedings privilege exists to facilitate the proper
administration of the justice system. It does so by relieving the participants in the
judicial process from fear of retaliatory lawsuits for statements they make in
connection with the proceeding itself.” Id. at 48. It attaches even to “communications
17
preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding” if “the communication has some
relation to a proceeding that is actually contemplated in good faith and under serious
consideration by the witness or a possible party to the proceeding.” Id. at 48-49.
“Even in the pre-suit context, however, the privilegke protects
communications that are themselves preparatory to tChe lawsuit.” Id.
(emphasis added). The privilege protects all communications that are “necessary to
set the judicial machinery in motion.” Id. at 50 (quoti
nig RESTATEMENT (SECOND)
OF TORTS § 586 cmt. a) (emphasis added).
Here, Pohl has sued Kassab in retaliation for Kassab “solicit[ing] …
clients/prospective clients to act as plaintiffs … to bring cases against Pohl for alleged
barratry and other claims.”25 Pohl admitsl that he is suing Kassab for statements
Kassab made to prospective clients Mwhich spawned the litigation and grievance
proceedings:26
25 Amended Petition, at ¶ 29.
26 Exhibit 3, December 2021 Deposition of Michael Pohl, at 122.
18
Because Pohl’s claims against Kassab arise out of communications that Kassab
made in prospective (solicitation letters) and actual judicial proceedings (the barratry
litigation and grievance process), Pohl’s claims against Kassab are barred by the
judicial proceedings privilege. See Crain v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 58, 62-63k (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (holding that statements in letteCr sent before the
lawsuit began were protected by the judicial-proceedings privilege); Highland Capital
Mgmt., LP v. Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C., No. 05-15-00i055-CV, 2016 Tex. App.
LEXIS 442, at *10-11 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 14, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
(applying attorney immunity to claim that attorney engaged in “malicious conduct
with respect to its illegal acquisition, retention, use, and threatened disclosure of [the
plaintiff’s] proprietary and confidential inlformation” that “it knew to be stolen and
proprietary in furtherance of its scMheme to extort, slander, and disparage [the
plaintiff]” and “refusing to return and cease use of [the plaintiff’s] proprietary
information”). i
Both the defenses of attorney immunity and the judicial proceedings privilege
necessarily require dioscussion of facts relating to Pohl’s barratry. In fact, Question
No. 8 on Kassab’s lproposed jury charge incorporates these defenses and the concept
of privilege anid asks “Did Kassab use or disclose Pohl’s information for the purpose
of reporting, investigating, or filing a lawsuit relating to a suspected violation of law,
a commission of a crime, or other matters of substantial public concern?”27 The
question instructs the jury on Texas law relating to barratry.28 Thus, information
27 Exhibit 2, Kassab’s Proposed Jury Charge, p. 15.
28 Exhibit 2, Kassab’s Proposed Jury Charge, p. 15.
19
about whether barratry occurred and the facts and circumstances giving rise to the
barratry litigation is relevant. Pohl’s contention that “whether barratry occurred” is
“not legally relevant to the material issues in this case”29 is false.
3. Barratry is relevant to Kassab’s defenskes of
immunity under Texas Rule of Disceiplinary
Procedure 17.09. C
The only immunity defense that Pohl does address is Kassab’s claim that he is
immune under Rule 17.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinaryi Procedure.30 Pohl argues
that “Pohl’s claims, and thus the lawsuit, are not predicated on Kassab’s involvement
in the grievance process, [so] Rule 17.09 does not apply.”31 Kassab has already
explained why this is not true and why he is entitled to immunity as a matter of law.32
Pohl has sued Kassab because Kassab allelgedly “used information from [Pohl’s] files
in the grievance proceedings thatM [Kassab] personally filed or had clients file”33
and Pohl is suing Kassab to recover “the reasonable fees and expenses incurred in
defending [the] underlying bairratry and grievance proceedings that were made
possible through the misappropriation of Pohl’s trade secrets.”34 Thus, Pohl’s lawsuit
is, at least in part, “poredicated upon the filing of a Grievance or participation in the
attorney disciplin
alry and disability system.” TEX. RULES DISCIPLINARY P. R. 17.09.
Rule 17.09 proivides “absolute and unqualified” immunity for such conduct, which
29 Motion, p. 2.
30 Motion, p. 12-13.
31 Motion, p. 12.
32 In the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed on August 29, 2022, Kassab established, as
a matter of law, the defense of immunity pursuant to Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.09,
Kassab also incorporates that motion and the evidence attached thereto. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 58.
33 December 2021 Deposition of Michael Pohl, at 122 (emphasis added).
34 Exhibit 1, Pohl’s Amended Responses to Disclosures, p. 4 (emphasis added).
20
“extends to all actions at law or in equity.” Id.
Pohl argues that Rule 17.09 applies only to “certain officials connected to the
State Bar” and not to Kassab because he “is not a State Bar official.”35 But the rule
plainly applies to “the Complainant or witness” involved in the grievancke process. Id.
(“No lawsuit may be instituted against any Complainant or wCitness predicated
upon the filing of a Grievance or participation in the attorney disciplinary and
disability system.”) (emphasis added). Pohl admits that Kassiab was both.36 Therefore,
no lawsuit may be instituted against Kassab that is predicated upon Kassab’s
involvement in the grievance process. See id. Because Pohl is suing Kassab to recover
fees Pohl incurred defending the grievances filed by Kassab or his clients against
Pohl, the claim is necessarily “predicated ulpon” the filing of the grievances, rendering
immunity provided by the rule applicMable to Kassab. See id.
Pohl concedes that a “small portion” of his damages “are connected to the
grievance process” but argues ithat is insufficient to trigger Rule 17.09 because Pohl’s
claims allege that Kassab engaged in other wrongful conduct unrelated to the
grievance process.37 Bout under Rule 17.09, “[n]o lawsuit” may be instituted if it is
“predicated upon” lthe filing of a grievance, and immunity “extends to all actions at
law or in equitiy.” Id. Because at least part of Pohl’s claims and request for damages
is predicated on the grievance proceedings, the entire suit is barred, regardless of
whether Pohl alleges that Kassab engaged in otherwise tortious or wrongful conduct.
35 Motion, pp. 12-13.
36 December 2021 Deposition of Michael Pohl, at 122.
37 Motion, p. 13.
21
See Crampton v. Farris, 596 S.W.3d 267, 274-76 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019,
no pet.) (claim for destruction of evidence related to grievance proceeding barred by
immunity); Burch v. State Bar of Tex., No. 07-19-00224-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS
1409, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 19, 2020, pet. denied) (lawksuit against
attorneys for commission who purportedly “engaged in misconCduct related to a
bankruptcy proceeding in which [plaintiff] was involved” was barred by immunity
because it occurred in relation to a grievance proceeding). i
Accordingly, whether Pohl committed barratry and Kassab’s participation in
the grievance process relating to Pohl’s barratry is relevant to Kassab’s Rule 17.09
defense, and thus the instant Motion should be denied.
4. Barratry is relevant lto Kassab’s defenses of unclean
hands. a
The doctrine of unclean hands applies to claims involving equitable remedies.
See In re Nolle, 265 S.W.3d 48e7, 494 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig.
proceeding). Pohl initially
sofught “injunctive relief”38 and it is well-established that
“[i]njunctive relief is an equitable remedy.” Fetter v. Wells Fargo Bank Tex., N.A.,
110 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (emphasis
added). Recogniziing this, Pohl argues that he “previously pled injunctive relief in his
petition, to ostreamline issues for trial, Pohl will no longer seek this relief.”39 But Pohl
has not filed any amendment, and thus the claim seeking equitable relief is still live,
rendering Kassab’s unclean hands defense applicable. Moreover, Pohl has pursued
38 First Amended Petition, at ¶ 45.
39 Motion, p. 14.
22
claims under TUTSA, which requires a person claiming ownership of a trade secret
to demonstrate “legal, or equitable” title to the information. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 134A.002(3-a) (emphasis added). Because Pohl’s claim to ownership of
the information is grounded in equity, Kassab is entitled to show Pkohl’s unclean
hands after engaging in his illegal barratry scheme to acquire theC information that
Pohl claims are his trade secrets.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER D i
For these reasons, Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance
Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm ask the Court to deny Plaintiffs’
Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted
by the Kassab Defendants. l
MTHE KASSAB LAW FIRM
/s/ David Eric Kassab
e David Eric Kassab
i Texas State Bar No. 24071351
f 1214 Elgin Street
Houston, Texas 77004
Telephone: (713) 522-7400
o E-service: eserve@kassab.law
l FOGLER, BRAR, O’NEIL & GRAY, LLP
i /s/ Murray Fogler
o Murray Fogler
mfogler@foglerbrar.com
Texas State Bar No. 07207300
909 Fannin, Suite 1640
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 481-1010
(713) 574-3224 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR KASSAB DEFENDANTS
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been
forwarded to all parties pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the
13th day of August, 2023.
/s/ David Eric Kassab k
David Eric Kassab e
24
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
David Kassab
Bar No. 24071351
david@kassab.law r
Envelope ID: 78474030
Filing Code Description: Answer/ Response / Waiver
Filing Description: Kassab Defendants' Response to Plaintiffst' Rule 166(g)
Motion i
Status as of 8/14/2023 8:18 AM CST s
Case Contacts 
Name BarNumber Email g TimestampSubmitted Status
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfriazzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre c scott@favrepa.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade f lawyerwade@hotmail.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas  cpappas@krcl.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Non-Party Witness Billy Shepherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Non-Party Dona Pohl C DonaLyann@yahoo.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Non-Party Edgar Jaimesa edgarsroom@gmail.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Lance Kassab lance@kassab.law 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
David Kassab o david@kassab.law 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Nicholas PiercUe nicholas@kassab.law 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez andrea@kassab.law 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrar.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
David Kassab
Bar No. 24071351
david@kassab.law r
Envelope ID: 78474030
Filing Code Description: Answer/ Response / Waiver
Filing Description: Kassab Defendants' Response to Plaintiffst' Rule 166(g)
Motion i
Status as of 8/14/2023 8:18 AM CST s
Case Contacts 
Raul Herman Suazo 24003021 suazo@mdjwlawg.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
D Kassab david@kassab.law 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfaogler@foglerbrar.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Thallia Malespin tmalespin@reynoldsfrizzell.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
L Kassab c lance@kassab.law 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Kelly Skelton f reception@kassab.law 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT
Harris Wells  hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 8/13/2023 12:21:33 PM SENT"
55,2023-03-29,RSP,Pohl,Response to Amended MSJ,Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to the Amended Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants,"Filed March 29, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court (Judge Weems) by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Responds to Kassab's Amended MSJ (filing #50). Pohl argues the Amended Motion is a disguised motion to reconsider that reiterates the same arguments and evidence denied by the 189th District Court on October 31, 2022. Pohl objects to oral hearing under 281st Court Procedure I(I).",MSJ-4,N/A,Phase 4,2023-03-29_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Amended-MSJ_FILED.pdf,Deny Kassab's Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment,"3/29/2023 5:09 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 74146534
By: Julia Adkins
Filed: 3/29/2023 5:09 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiffs, §
V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS
§ e
LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l
KASSAB, et. al § 
§ c
Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDED MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASsSAB DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond
in opposition to the Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment (the
“Amended Motion”) filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher
Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (coallectively “Kassab”).
I. INTRODUCTION
The Court should not entertaien motions to reconsider filed under another name, especially
when such a motion fails to makef any statement about why reconsideration is warranted. Despite
its name, the Amended Motiyon does not specify what prior motions it purports to amend. But, in
substance, it seeks recoCnsideration of Kassab’s previous motions for summary judgment that the
189th District Courat denied. Kassab does not explain why those prior rulings were wrong, nor
does he attemptf to explain whether the facts, arguments, or law have changed from the previously
denied mUotions. Kassab has not demonstrated that the Court should reconsider or revisit those
rulings, or that any prior ruling was erroneous. Thus, the Court should deny the Amended Motion.
Pohl also objects to the hearing on Kassab’s Amended Motion. The vast majority of the
Amended Motion is directly copied and pasted from Kassab’s prior motions for traditional and no-
evidence summary judgment that were denied by the 189th District Court. Kassab seeks the same
relief and uses the same arguments as contained in his denied motions. Thus, the Amended Motion
is a motion to “reconsider” with a different title. Under this Court’s procedures, “[a]ll motions to
reconsider are heard by submission only.” Procedure I(I) of the 281st Judicial District Court.
Kassab has not requested reconsideration of the prior summary judgment mkotions—instead
he purports to seek a new ruling on already decided issues. See generally Amelnded Motion. This
failure to request reconsideration alone warrants the Court denying the cAmended Motion. But
even if the Court were to reconsider the prior denials of the summary sjudgment motions, the result
would be no different. The 189th District Court reached the corsrect result, and Kassab’s failure to
explain otherwise is telling. As discussed below, Pohl’s prior briefing on these issues is
dispositive, and Kassab’s limited presentation of new information in the Amended Motion does
not justify a different result.
II. BaACKGROUND
On August 29, 2022, Kassab filed motions for traditional and no-evidence summary
judgment (“Kassab’s Original MSJs”e). Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ sought judgment on Pohl’s
affirmative claims.1 Kassab’s Trfa f ditional MSJ also sought judgment on Pohl’s claims, as well as
on Kassab’s affirmative defyenses.2 On September 12, 2022, Pohl filed responses to Kassab’s
Original MSJs that demConstrated that summary judgment in Kassab’s favor was not proper.3
Pohl’s Respaonse to Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ—which attached over 30 exhibits of
relevant evidenfce—demonstrated that there was sufficient evidence to support each element of
Pohl’s afUfirmative claims.4 Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ laid out how Kassab
1 See Kassab’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Aug. 29, 2022 (“Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ”).
2 See Kassab’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Aug. 29, 2022 (“Kassab’s Traditional MSJ”).
3 See Pohl’s Response in Opposition to the No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab
Defendants and the Nicholson Defendants, filed Sept. 12, 2022 (“Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ”);
Pohl’s Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants
and the Nicholson Defendants, filed Sept. 12, 2022 (“Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ”).
4 See generally Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ (including the evidence cited therein).
failed to carry his summary judgment burden—Kassab did not show that there were no disputed
material facts, nor did he demonstrate a right to judgment as a matter of law.5 After an oral hearing,
the 189th District Court denied Kassab’s Original MSJs on October 31, 2022.6
On January 4, 2023, Kassab filed his Motion to Reconsider Traditional ankd No-Evidence
Motions for Summary Judgment, in which he asked Judge Craft to reconsidler prior rulings on
Kassab’s Original MSJs.7 Kassab filed this motion and set it for hearingc with the 189th District
Court, despite the fact that this lawsuit had been transferred to this Csourt. In this motion, Kassab
reiterated the same arguments and evidence contained in Kassabs’s Original MSJs—however, that
motion did explicitly request reconsideration of the denial of Kassab’s Original MSJs.8
Without explanation, on February 24, 2023, Kassab filed the Amended Motion. It does
not state what motion(s) it amends. See generally Amended Motion. Like Kassab’s Motion to
Reconsider, that he filed the prior month, Kassaab’s Amended Motion contains the same arguments
and evidence contained in Kassab’s Original MSJs.9 However, Kassab removed references to
reconsideration of Kassab’s Originale MSJs. See id. On its face, the Amended Motion does not
purport to be based on new evidenfce, changes in the law, or new arguments that were not presented
in Kassab’s Original MSJys. See id. However, Kassab’s omission of any discussion of
reconsideration does Cnot change the substance of the Amended Motion. At best, it is an
amendment to Kassab’s prior request for reconsideration of the denial of Kassab’s Original MSJs.
5 See generally Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ (including the evidence cited therein).
6 See Court Order, entered Oct. 31, 2022.
7 See Kassab’s Motion to Reconsider Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment, at 3 (“Kassab
files this Motion to Reconsider to correct the erroneous ruling of the prior judge relating to the Kassab’s Traditional
and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment.”).
8 Compare Kassab’s Motion to Reconsider Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment, with
Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ, and Kassab’s Traditional MSJ.
9 Compare Amended Motion, with Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ, and Kassab’s Traditional MSJ.
III. POHL’S OBJECTION TO KASSAB’S AMENDED MOTION
Pohl objects to Kassab setting the Amended Motion for an oral hearing, as it is almost
identical to and seeks the same relief as Kassab’s Original MSJs that were denied by the 189th
District Court. Thus, the Amended Motion is a motion to “reconsider.” Undker this Court’s
procedures, “[a]ll motions to reconsider are heard by submission only.” Procedlure I(I) of the 281st
Judicial District Court. c
IV. POHL’S INCORPORATION OF PRIOR BRsIEFING
Pohl incorporates fully by reference his prior summary judgment briefing—both the
arguments and the attached evidence—into this response teo Kassab’s Amended Motion. This
includes the following briefing and exhibits:
• Pohl’s Response in Opposition to the No-E n vidence Motions for Summary Judgment Filed
by the Kassab Defendants and the Nichoilson Defendants & Exhibits (filed Sept. 12, 2022).
• Pohl’s Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed
by the Kassab Defendants and the Nicholson Defendants & Exhibits (filed Sept. 12, 2022).
fV. DISCUSSION
All of the issues presented in Kassab’s Amended Motion—whether traditional or no-
evidence arguments for soummary judgment—have been previously ruled on in Pohl’s favor. The
same result is proper lhere, and the Court should deny the Amended Motion.
Kassab’si no-evidence summary judgment arguments fail because Pohl has previously
provided sunfficient evidence of every element of his claims in Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s No-
Evidence MSJ. Because this addressed every element of Pohl’s claims, a subsequent no-evidence
motion makes no sense—the same showing of evidence defeats such a challenge. At best,
subsequent developments might give rise to disputed issues of material fact, but such issues
preclude summary judgment in their own right.
Kassab’s traditional summary judgment arguments fare no better. Pohl’s Response to
Kassab’s Traditional MSJ raised issues of disputed material facts or exposed flaws in Kassab’s
legal arguments that precluded summary judgment in Kassab’s favor. Kassab asserts the same
flawed arguments in his Amended Motion. Once there are disputed issues of mkaterial fact that
prevent summary judgment on an issue, additional evidence on that disputed flactual issue makes
no difference in a summary judgment analysis. The five new exhibits (cout of 65 exhibits total)
attached to Kassab’s Amended Motion, at best, provide additional stestimony on disputed facts.
The Court should reject Kassab’s attempt to seek reconsiderastion under a different name and
should deny Kassab’s Amended Motion.
A. Kassab is not entitled to no-evidence summary judgment.
The 189th District Court made the right decision when it denied Kassab’s No-Evidence
MSJ. The Court should deny Kassab’s Amended Motion outright because, as was shown through
his prior briefing, Pohl has come forward with sufficient evidence to support each element of his
claims.10 Nothing has changed sincee Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ was denied, and nothing in
Kassab’s Amended Motion suggef f sts that a different result is proper here.11
In Pohl’s prior briefying, Pohl put forward evidence sufficient to, at a minimum, raise a
genuine issue of materCial fact on each element of his three claims. See generally Pohl’s Response
in Opposition to thea No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants
and the Nicholsfon Defendants (including the evidence attached and incorporated therein). By the
10 As stated above, Pohl incorporates fully by reference his prior briefing and evidence on the no-evidence summary
judgment issue. See generally Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ (including the evidence cited therein).
11 The wording of Kassab’s no-evidence challenge to Pohl’s claims is almost entirely copied, word-for-word, from
Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ. Compare Amended Motion, at 88–94, with Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ. The sole
addition is a paragraph in which Kassab argues that “Pohl has no evidence that he is wholly innocent in the illegal
obtainment of any client for which his claims are based.” See Amended Motion, at 93. This is not part of any element
of Pohl’s claims, and Kassab does not explain otherwise. Kassab cites no authority to explain the relevance of this
assertion, nor does he establish that Pohl has the burden of proof with respect to this issue. See generally id. Thus,
this argument cannot be a proper basis for no-evidence summary judgment.
nature of a no-evidence summary judgment, once a party has presented sufficient evidence to
defeat such a motion, further no-evidence challenges on the same elements of a claim are futile.
Because Kassab previously raised a no-evidence challenge to each element of Pohl’s
claims, and Pohl provided sufficient evidence to support each element of his kclaims, the no-
evidence challenge to Pohl’s claims in Kassab’s Amended Motion necessarilly fails.12 For this
reason, and for the reasons stated in Pohl’s prior briefing incorporated hcerein, Pohl requests that
the Court deny Kassab’s Amended Motion. s
B. Kassab is not entitled to traditional summary judgmsent.
Kassab makes no effort to explain to the Court how the 189th District Court erred when it
previously denied Kassab’s Traditional MSJ. Nothing material has changed since Kassab’s
Traditional MSJ was denied, and the Amended Motion reiterates the same rejected arguments and
evidence. The Court should deny Kassab’s Amended Motion because, as Pohl demonstrated in
his prior briefing, Kassab’s arguments and evidence do not entitle Kassab to judgment as a matter
of law. Thus, Pohl requests that the Ceourt deny Kassab’s Amended Motion.
1. Pohl’s prior briefing dfefeats Kassab’s Amended Motion.
The 189th District Cyourt was right on the law and the facts when it denied Kassab’s
Traditional MSJ. The Court should deny Kassab’s Amended Motion because, excluding the
handful of exceptiaons discussed below, Kassab relies on the same arguments, exhibits, and
authority contaifned in Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ to seek the same relief a second time. Nothing
has changed since this relief was first denied, and neither should the Court’s ruling on these issues.
As stated above, Pohl incorporates fully by reference his prior briefing and evidence on the
traditional summary judgment issues.13 Because the portions of the Amended Motion addressing
12 See Court Order, entered Oct. 31, 2022 (denying Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ).
13 See generally Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ (including the evidence cited therein).
traditional summary judgment are largely identical to Kassab’s prior motion, further briefing on
this issue would be unnecessarily duplicative. Compare Amended Motion, at 2–88, with Kassab’s
Traditional MSJ. For the reasons stated in Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ the Court
should deny Kassab’s Amended Motion. k
2. Kassab’s citations to limited new materials does not justify recon
silderation or suggest
that summary judgment is proper.
While the issues, arguments, and the vast majority of the wordinrgi and exhibits are directly
copied from Kassab’s Original MSJs, Kassab does cite five new exDhibits and two new cases in the
Amended Motion. However, even if this new material were reslevant and applicable—which Pohl
disputes—it makes no difference, because disputed issuers of material fact or flaws in Kassab’s
legal arguments prevent summary judgment.
Kassab cites the limited new material in clonnection with three arguments in the Amended
Motion: (1) Pohl’s trade secret claim fails aMs a matter of law due to a failure to sufficiently protect
the trade secrets; (2) Pohl’s trade secreto claim fails as a matter of law because Pohl does not own
the trade secrets and property at issuce in his claims; and (3) that Pohl cannot recover on his claims
because Kassab’s affirmative defense of illegality or the unlawful acts doctrine is conclusively
established as a matter of law. None of these arguments support granting summary judgment.
i. Pohl reasonably protected his trade secret information, including information
concaerning clients.
Kassab fargues that Pohl’s claim for theft of trade secrets fails because Kassab has
established as a matter of law that “Pohl did not take any measures, let alone reasonable measures,
to keep his alleged information or client lists secret.” See Amended Motion, at 59–62 (citing Exs.
61–64 to the Amended Motion). Kassab’s evidence does not establish this fact. Even if
Kassab’s presentation of the testimony were accurate—and it is not—it would at most raise issues
of disputed material facts that preclude the Court from granting Kassab’s Amended Motion. Pohl’s
prior briefing presented controverting evidence on this precise issue that precludes summary
judgment.14
Pohl testified in his deposition regarding the reasonable steps he took to protect the client
information, confidential information, and trade secrets that are the subject mattekr of this suit.15
This alone is sufficient to raise a fact issue for the jury to decide regarding whelther the steps Pohl
took were reasonable under the circumstances to protect Pohl’s trade secrects. However, additional
evidence supports Pohl’s position that he protected the confidentisality of his trade secrets—
including the testimony of the same individuals that Kassab relises on to argue otherwise.
Kassab cites the testimony of Scott Walker, Kirk Ladner, and Steve Seymour to suggest
that Pohl failed to sufficiently protect information related to clients. See Amended Motion, at 61
(citing Exs. 62-64 to the Amended Motions). But Kassab’s citations to their testimony lacks
context. Those same three individuals testifiaed that Pohl limited access to his trade secrets, and
that Pohl ensured that those who had access to that information understood the confidential
character of that information.16 Thise testimony is also sufficient to raise a fact question on this
issue and prevent summary judgmfent.
Kassab also omits relyevant testimony from Mary Arnold—a former employee of Pohl’s—
to suggest that she didC not protect the confidentiality of Pohl’s trade secret information. See
Amended Motion, at 59–60. But Kassab fails to note that, in the same deposition he cites, Mrs.
Arnold testifiefdf about how she understood that Pohl owned the relevant information and that it
was not tUo be shared or discussed around third parties.17 The omitted portions of Mrs. Arnold’s
14 See Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ, at 25–26 (including the evidence cited therein).
15 See Pohl Deposition, at 15:21-16:18, attached as Ex. U to Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ.
16 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, 321:5-324:7; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 355:18–358:10,
372:7–374:24, 377:4–23; Deposition of Steve Seymour, at 96:16-24, 223:1-20, attached as Exs. D, V, & W,
respectively, to Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ. See also Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 14-15, attached as Ex. A
to Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ.
17 See Deposition of Mary Arnold, at 83:14–24, 159:24–160:21, attached as Exhibit A.
testimony help demonstrate that there are disputed issues of material fact that prevents summary
judgment on this issue.
Kassab cannot show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Pohl’s trade secret
claim by selectively citing testimony that is contradicted, often by the same witnkess in the same
deposition. Even if Kassab’s evidence were relevant to showing that Pohl’s inlformation was not
reasonably protected—and it is not at all clear that the factors discussed bcy Kassab are relevant or
dispositive of this inquiry—there is ample controverting evidence abosut the measures took by Pohl
to protect the confidentiality of his trade secret information. Thesse disputed issues of material fact
prevent summary judgment on this issue.
ii. Kassab has not conclusively refuted, as a matter of law, Pohl’s ownership of the
relevant trade secrets and confidential information.
Kassab also argues that Pohl’s claims for ltheft of trade secrets and conversion fail because
Kassab can conclusively establish that “PohMl does not own the purported trade secrets or property
that he alleges had been converted.” Seoe Amended Motion, at 64. Kassab cites four new exhibits
in support of this argument. See id.c at 65 (citing Exs. 62–65 to the Amended Motion). However,
this issue was already addressed, and there are disputed issues of material fact that prevent
summary judgment. Kassab’s “new” evidence does not demonstrate that he can carry his burden
to establish this issue as a matter of law.
Kassab clcaims that “Walker, Ladner and Seymour all testified that all of their marketing
assets, including client contact information and lists were created by them and their marketing
companies and belonged to them.” See id. This statement is misleading at best. To the extent that
the cited testimony even concerns Pohl’s trade secrets and confidential information at issue in this
case—a fact Kassab fails to establish, despite it being his burden to do so—those same individuals
gave conflicting testimony stating the relevant documents and information were Pohl’s, belonged
to Pohl, and were kept confidential at his request.18 Such testimony—which Pohl cited in his prior
briefing—at a minimum raises a fact issue that precludes summary judgment on this issue.19
iii. Kassab not only fails to conclusively prove his affirmative defense of “unlawful
acts,” but the defense fails as a matter of law under binding precedent.
The final issue is Kassab’s argument that he conclusively established hris unlawful acts
doctrine affirmative defense, which he contends precludes any recovery by Pohl. See Amended
Motion, at 66. For this argument, Kassab cites four of the five new exhriibits. Id at 69 (citing Exs.
61–64 to the Amended Motion). Kassab also cites two new, out-Dof-state federal court decisions
that he claims support the application of his affirmative defensse. See id at 72–73. But even with
this new material, Kassab fails to carry his burden to estarblish his affirmative defense as a matter
of law. Rather, binding precedent demonstrates that his defense fails as a matter of law.
While Pohl disputes whether Kassab’s alrguments about barratry and the unlawful acts
doctrine have any relevance to this lawsuit aMt all, to the extent that the unlawful acts doctrine could
have any relevance to this case, it is preeompted by Texas’s proportionate responsibility statute. In
Dugger v. Arredondo, the Texas Sucpreme Court explicitly found that “the common law unlawful
acts doctrine is no longer a viable defense.” See 408 S.W.3d 825, 831–32 (Tex. 2013). This issue
was briefed previously, and Pohl directs the Court’s attention to that prior briefing, which Pohl
incorporates fully by reference.20 At the outset, the fact that this defense has been preempted
justifies denying cKassab’s Amended Motion on this issue.
Even if his defense were not preempted and Kassab’s evidence did suggest that Pohl
engaged in improper solicitation—two things Kassab has not demonstrated—Kassab would still
18 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, 316-319; 321:5-324:7, 327-329; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at
119:21-120:15, 340:10-342:17, 350:11-351:21, 355:18–358:10, 372:7–374:24, 377:4–23; Deposition of Steve
Seymour, at 96:16-24, 223:1-20, attached as Exs. D, V, & W, respectively, to Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional
MSJ.
19 See Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ, at 27; Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ, at 9–10.
20 See Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Traditional MSJ, at 19–23.
10
not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this defense. First, as discussed throughout the
prior briefing, there is controverting evidence on this issue that raises disputed issues of material
fact.21 Furthermore, even if Kassab were able to show that some illegal act occurred, Pohl does
not need to rely on any purported illegal act to establish his claims in this lawsuit.k22 Kassab does
not even attempt to establish otherwise. See Amended Motion, at 69. Thus, thel application of this
defense is not triggered in the first place. See Carcamo-Lopez v. Does 1 tchrough 20, 865 F. Supp.
2d 736, 767 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (“But when the illegal conduct arisess in a defense and not in the
plaintiff’s case, the unlawful acts rule will not bar a plaintiff’s cslaims.”).
The two new cases Kassab cites are not binding and have no application to the facts of this
case. The first new case Kassab cites is Alderson v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1200
(C.D. Cal. 2010). See Amended Motion, at 72. Quoting dicta, Kassab argues that: “A person
cannot ‘receive trade secret protection for infaormation about ongoing illegal activities.’” See id.
(quoting Alderson, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1200). But the reasoning of Alderson has no application to
this case. Alderson dealt with a plainetiff who, in a prior case, filed a False Claims Act action on
behalf of the federal government fconcerning Medicare fraud uncovered by the plaintiff. Alderson,
718 F. Supp. 2d at 1188. Ayt issue was whether the proceeds obtained by the plaintiff from the
prior False Claims ActC action were “correctly characterized as ordinary income” or capital gains
for purposes of taxation. See id. at 1201. It was in this context that the court considered whether
the plaintiff hafdf a protectable property interest in his knowledge of “information about ongoing
illegal acUtivities”—that is, how the Medicare fraud occurred that was the basis of the prior False
Claims Act action. See id. at 1200. The facts of this case are not analogous. Here, Pohl does not
21 See id. at 4–12, 23–27 (including the evidence cited therein).
22 See Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ, at 4–17 (discussing each element of Pohl’s claims without
requiring reference to or reliance on any illegal acts).
11
claim trade secret protection concerning how any illegal conduct was undertaken. Instead, Pohl
contends his customer lists and related information are entitled to trade secret protection.23
The second new case Kassab cites is Merckle GmbH v. Johnson & Johnson, 961 F. Supp.
721, 733 (D.N.J. 1997). See Amended Motion, at 72. Kassab cites to this case clakiming that there
is a privilege to disclose trade secrets “in connection with the disclosure of linformation that is
relevant to public health or safety, or to the commission of a crime or tocrt, or to other matters of
substantial public concern.” See Amended Motion, at 72 (citing Mserckle GmbH v. Johnson &
Johnson, 961 F. Supp. 721, 733 (D.N.J. 1997) & Restatement (Tshird) of Unfair Competition § 40,
cmt. c). However, there is a reason that Kassab cites this non-precedential opinion. No Texas case
has adopted this statement from the Restatement. Even if Texas were to adopt this privilege,
Kassab’s conclusory discussion does not carry his burden to establish this defense.
Kassab’s unlawful acts doctrine defensae fails as a matter of law under the binding precedent
of Dugger v. Arredondo. But even if this remained a proper defense, Kassab’s evidence does not
conclusively establish this defense eas a matter of law. The facts put forth by Kassab are
controverted by other evidence, afnd even if Kassab’s purported facts could be established, Kassab
has not conclusively shown tyhat they would trigger application of the unlawful acts doctrine, given
that Pohl’s claims do nCot require reference to or reliance on any purported unlawful act.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the fforegoing reasons, and for the reasons stated in Pohl’s prior briefing—which is
incorporaUted fully herein by reference—Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A.
Pohl respectfully request that the Court deny Kassab’s Amended Motion.
23 See Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s No-Evidence MSJ, at 9–10 (discussing how “the materials at issue included Pohl’s
client lists, client files, and thousands of contracts between Pohl and his clients”).
12
Dated: March 29, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650 k
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e
Houston, Texas 77002 l
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250 c
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom
Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERrVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 29th day of March, 2023.
M /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
 Jean C. Frizzell
13
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 74146534
Filing Code Description: Answer/ Response / Waiver
Filing Description: Plaintiffs' Response to Kassab Defendantst Amended
Motions for Summary Judgment i
Status as of 3/30/2023 8:24 AM CST s
Case Contacts 
Name BarNumber Email TimgestampSubmitted Status
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre scott@favrepa.coma 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@creynoldsfrizzell.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Lance Kassab eservef@kassab.law 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Lance Kassab lance@kassab.law 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
David Kassab david@kassab.law 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce Cnicholas@kassab.law 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez a andrea@kassab.law 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrar.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Murray Fogler o mfogler@fbfog.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
D Kassab U david@kassab.law 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Kelly Skelton reception@kassab.law 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 3/29/2023 5:09:20 PM SENT"
53,2023-03-14,RSP,Pohl,Response to Mtn to Rule,Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs' Objections to Kassab's Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre,"Filed March 14, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court by Pohl's counsel Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Pohl opposes Kassab's motion seeking to overrule Pohl's objections to Kassab's deposition on written questions (DWQ) of Scott Favre. This is Kassab's second motion — the first version argued leading questions were 'cross examination' but was revised to remove that argument as directly contrary to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.",MSJ-2R,N/A,Phase 4,2023-03-14_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Rule_FILED.pdf,Deny Kassab's Motion to Rule and sustain Pohl's objections to the questions contained in Kassab's DWQ,"3/14/2023 9:54 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 73666907
By: Bonnie Lugo
Filed: 3/14/2023 9:54 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiffs, §
V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS
§ e
LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l
KASSAB, et. al § 
§ c
Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO RULE
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael As. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”)
respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher rKassab and Lance Christopher Kassab
P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Kassab Defendants’
Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions lof Scott Favre (the “Motion”).1
I. MBACKGROUND
The parties have been unable to osecure an oral deposition of Scott Favre (“Favre”), and the
parties have been told his capabilityc to appear is limited by his ongoing cancer treatment. Favre
is a former co-defendant, and Pohl alleged Favre conspired with Kassab to misappropriate Pohl’s
trade secrets and propertyp, including by selling that information to Kassab.2 Although Kassab
admits that he made a six-figure, up-front payment to Favre, he contends the payment was made
to hire Favre as anc e i xpert to assist Kassab with bringing barratry claims against Pohl.3 Pohl alleges
the payment woas made in exchange for misappropriating Pohl’s confidential information.4
1 This is the second motion Kassab filed regarding Pohl’s objections. Kassab initially tried to argue that his leading
questions were proper because they constituted “cross examination.” But Kassab filed a subsequent motion that
removed that argument, as it was directly contrary to the wording of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Compare
Kassab Defendants’ Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Kassab Defendants’ Notice to Take Deposition
on Written Questions of Scott Favre, filed Feb. 28, 2023, with Motion (filed March 2, 2023).
2 See Pohl’s First Amended Petition ¶¶ 21–23.
3 See Deposition of Lance Kassab at 82:21–83:16, 98:15–99:8, 103:5–9, attached as Exhibit A.
4 See Pohl’s First Amended Petition ¶¶ 22–23.
After it became clear that Favre would not sit for an oral deposition, Pohl served a notice
for a deposition on written questions (“Pohl’s DWQ”) on February 3, 2023, to ensure the parties
secured Favre’s testimony before trial. See Pohl’s DWQ, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion.
Instead of serving questions in response, Kassab served a notice for a new deposkition on written
questions (“Kassab’s DWQ”), on February 17, 2023.5 See Kassab’s DWQ, atltached as Exhibit 2
to the Motion. Kassab did not limit himself to “direct questions” of Favrec—as provided for under
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 200.3(a). Insstead, Kassab asked leading
questions of Favre. Kassab also asked questions with typos sthat affected the meaning of the
questions and numerous questions that were misleading, vague, or were otherwise improper. Pohl
properly asserted objections to these questions.
II. DISyCUSSION
The Court should sustain Pohl’s objections and deny the Motion because Kassab is not
entitled to ask leading questions to a co-conspirator on direct examination, and Pohl’s form
objections to Kassab’s questions aree warranted on their face given the wording of Kassab’s
questions. Kassab’s Motion is jusft over two pages in length, and it fails to specify which of Pohl’s
objections Kassab takes issuye with. The Motion should be summarily denied.
A. Pohl’s objectCions to Kassab’s leading questions should be sustained because
Kassab has not shown that Favre is a hostile witness.
The Courct should sustain Pohl’s objections to Kassab’s leading questions because the
Texas Rules oof Evidence generally prohibit the use of leading question on direct examination, and
Kassab has not shown that any exception to that rule applies. Kassab now argues that Favre—
5 Kassab initially filed a version of Kassab’s DWQ for service on February 17, 2023, but it appears that a subsequent
filing was accepted on February 20, 2023. The precise date is not material, as Kassab’s DWQ purports on its face to
be a new deposition on written questions, rather than a response to Pohl’s DWQ. Additionally, while it is not directly
at issue, to Pohl’s knowledge, Kassab did not secure Favre’s consent to a second deposition on written questions—
which is necessary given that Favre was not subpoenaed.
who Kassab was aligned with for four years and who was a co-defendant with and a co-conspirator
of Kassab—is a hostile witness to Kassab. See Motion at 1–2. But Kassab’s allegations do not
demonstrate that Favre is a hostile witness. Thus, Kassab’s leading questions are improper.
The default rule is that “[l]eading questions should not be used on direct exakmination. TEX.
R. EVID. 611(c). However, a court may allow leading questions “when a
plarty calls a hostile
witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse partyc.” Id. “The decision to
permit a leading question lies within the sound discretion of the triasl court.” Mega Child Care,
Inc. v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Services, 29 S.W.3sd 303, 308 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
There is no dispute that Kassab asked leading questions, nor does Kassab contend that any
of Pohl’s “leading” objections were directed at non-leading questions. See Motion at 1–2. Instead,
Kassab claims that his leading questions werae proper because the questions were directed at “a
hostile witness. See id. at 2. But throughout the history of this case, Favre has been aligned with
Kassab and hostile to Pohl. Kassab celaims that he hired Favre as an expert witness to assist him
on numerous potential disputes.6 f Favre is a former co-defendant of Kassab in this lawsuit.7 And
Pohl alleges that Favre is a yco-conspirator along with Kassab in relation to the misappropriation
of Pohl’s trade secrets.C8 To rebut this status quo, Kassab offers little more than conjecture.
Kassab makes three claims to support his claim that Favre should be viewed as a hostile
witness: (1) “Pflfaintiffs came to an agreement with Favre to nonsuit him and his companies”; (2)
Favre’s laUwyer “threatened to sue Kassab”; and (3) Favre’s lawyer “has refused to cooperate with
6 See Deposition of Lance Kassab at 82:21–83:16, attached as Exhibit A.
7 See generally Pohl’s First Amended Petition.
8 See id. ¶ 43.
the Kassab’s Court Reporter to set a time for Favre to answer Kassab’s deposition on written
questions.” See Motion at 2. None of these arguments has merit.
1. A plaintiff settling with or non-suiting a party does not make that party “hostile” to
remaining defendants.
Kassab’s primary justification for treating Favre as “hostile” is that Krassab submitted
questions to Favre after Pohl “came to an agreement with Favre to nonsuit him and his companies.”
See Motion at 2. Other than citing to Rule of Evidence 611(c), whicrhi provides for the hostile
witness exception, Kassab cites no authority showing that non-suitiDng a defendant makes that party
“hostile” to remaining defendants. s
As Pohl’s counsel has stated during hearings in thirs lawsuit, Pohl was incentivized to settle
or non-suit multiple defendants as part of an unsuccessful strategy to prevent trial from being
delayed.9 Given that the parties have been told plreviously that Favre had been so ill that he could
not sit for a full remote Zoom deposition,10M Pohl has no confidence that Favre could participate as
a party in a two-week trial. Given thosoe circumstances, Pohl’s non-suit of Favre does not justify
Kassab treating Favre as a hostile wcitness.
2. A personal dispute between Favre’s lawyer and Kassab does not show Favre is
“hostile” to Kassyab.
Kassab’s second justification for treating Favre as “hostile” is that an overheated and tense
email exchange oaccurred between lawyers after a deposition was canceled due to the
hospitalization off the witness. Kassab described this dispute as follows:
Favre has become a hostile witness because his lawyer, David Wade has threatened
to sue Kassab simply because Kassab asked him and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay for
the deposition that they both cancelled after Wade promised the Court he would
present Favre on a day certain and then cancelled.
9 See Dec. 1, 2022 Hearing Transcript, at 22:12–23:11, attached as Exhibit B.
10 Even when Favre did purport to be available, his lawyer could not commit that he could complete a deposition in a
single sitting. See id. at 13:11–14:13.
Motion at 2 (citing Exhibit 4 to the Motion). Kassab presents this issue without appropriate context
and in a misleading fashion.
This issue concerns a prior attempt by the parties to take an oral deposition of Favre on
December 7, 2022. Prior to that deposition, Kassab was aware that there might bek issues with the
deposition occurring as scheduled. He knew that Favre was fighting the flu andl had chemotherapy
scheduled for two days prior to the deposition.11 Counsel for Kassab cemailed Favre’s lawyer
(David Wade) the day before to inquire about whether the depositiosn would go forward.12 The
next morning, before the deposition, David Wade notified Kasssab that “Favre has been in the
hospital since last night. His deposition will not move forward this morning. I will update you with
his next availability when I receive that information. Thank you for your patience.”13
Despite being told that the deposition could not go forward due to Favre’s hospitalization,
the very next day, Kassab demanded that Davaid Wade and Pohl’s counsel pay an invoice for the
deposition that was cancelled. See Exhibit 4 to the Motion, at 2. David Wade’s response to
Kassab’s request shows his obvious efrustration.14 While Pohl does not endorse David Wade’s
response to Kassab, all that this exfchange reflects is tension between counsel to parties to a lawsuit.
It does not demonstrate that yFavre—who did not send the email—is a hostile witness to Kassab.
3. An after-theC-fact logistical issue between Favre’s lawyer and a court reporter does not
demonstrate that Favre is “hostile” to Kassab.
Kassab’s cfinal justification for why the Court should treat Favre as “hostile” is because
David Wade allegedly “refused to cooperate with the Kassab’s Court Reporter to set a time for
Favre to answer Kassab’s deposition on written questions.” See Motion at 2 (citing Exhibit 6 to
11 See Dec. 1, 2022 Hearing Transcript, at 13:7–21, attached as Exhibit B.
12 See Dec. 6, 2022 email from Murray Fogler, attached as Exhibit C.
13 See Dec. 7, 2022 email from David Wade, attached as Exhibit D.
14 It is worth noting that Kassab’s description of this email is inaccurate. Contrary to what Kassab says, David Wade
did not threaten to sue Kassab. See Motion at 2. Rather, David Wade made the facially non-serious statement that if
“you ask me that again, i will ask my client to sue . . . .” See Exhibit 4 to the Motion, at 1.
the Motion). But nothing about the email chain Kassab cites demonstrates that Favre is a hostile
witness to Kassab. Kassab provides no authority to show that a lawyer’s failure to respond to two
scheduling emails can make that lawyer’s client hostile to a party in a lawsuit.
To support his conclusion that Favre is a hostile witness due to Mr. Wkade’s supposed
failure to cooperate in scheduling, Kassab cites a single email chain. See Mlotion at 2 (citing
Exhibit 6 to the Motion). But this exhibit shows very little. First, it shocws that Mr. Wade spoke
to the court reporter hired by Kassab on February 24, 2023. See Esxhibit 6 to the Motion, at 2.
Subsequently, it appears that Mr. Wade did not respond to two scsheduling emails sent by that court
report—emails sent on consecutive days, February 28, and March 1, 2023. See id. at 1–2.
However, Mr. Wade’s failure to respond to those two emails is not indicative of much, if
anything at all. The first email was sent at 9:47 AM on February 28, 2023, and the second email
was sent the next day, March 1, 202,3 at 10:1a2 AM. Id. That same day, on March 1, 2023—just
over 30 hours after the first email was sent—Kassab first filed the Motion complaining about Mr.
Wade’s failure to respond.15 Whilee Pohl does not know if or when Mr. Wade responded, all
Kassab’s Motion indicates is thaft Kassab filed the Motion on March 1st complaining that Mr.
Wade had not responded to yan email sent the prior day, on February 28th. Such events have no
bearing on whether a wCitness is hostile to a party.
Not only does Kassab provide no authority indicating that a scheduling issue by a lawyer
can result in thfaft lawyer’s client being found to be hostile to another party, but Kassab does not
explain hUow such a finding could retroactively justify objectionable questions. Kassab served his
leading questions on Favre no later than February 20, 2023. See Kassab’s DWQ, attached as
15 See Exhibit E (showing that Kassab first attempted to file the Motion at 3:57 PM on March 1, 2023). Kassab’s
filing was rejected, and the Motion was refiled the next day, on March 2, 2023. See Motion at 5 (showing the
“Automated Certificate of eService”). The Certificate of Service on the Motion still states that it was served on “March
1, 2023,” reflecting the date that Kassab first attempted to file the Motion. See id. at 4.
Exhibit 2 to the Motion. Kassab does not address how Mr. Wade’s purported failure to respond to
emails sent well over a week after Kassab’s DWQ was served could justify Kassab’s previously
served leading questions.
Even assuming Kassab’s accounting of events could be established wkith evidence, a
lawyer’s failure to promptly respond to a scheduling email, which was sent alfter questions were
served on that lawyer’s client, does not render that client hostile to any pcarty. Because Kassab’s
post-hoc attempt to justify his leading questions fails, the Court shousld sustain Pohl’s objections
to Kassab’s leading questions. s 
B. Pohl’s objections to the form of Kassab’s questions should be sustained.
Many of Kassab’s questions to Favre are objectionable on their face. In the Motion, Kassab
even concedes that some of his questions were defective, as they contain “typos or misspellings of
words.” See Motion at 1–2. But Kassab did not choose to fix those admitted issues by submitting
amended questions as part of his “redirect questions.” Instead, Kassab makes the heated
accusation that “Pohl filed frivolous e. . . objections to several of the questions propounded.” See
id. Despite accusing Pohl of assferting “frivolous” objections, Kassab did not bother to identify
which questions or objectionys are at issue. See id.
Kassab’s failurCe to identify the questions or objections at issue indicates the weakness of
his position. He doaes not cite to a single example of the supposedly “frivolous” objections Kassab
claims were assferted by Pohl. See id. Additionally, contrary to Kassab’s suggestion (see Motion
at 2–3), eUvidence is not needed to sustain objections to the form of questions. See In re Union
Pac. Res. Co., 22 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. 1999) (discussing how “evidence may not always be
necessary to support” objections). The Court should sustain Pohl’s objections because they are
asserted in response to facially objectionable questions.
Pohl objected to portions of 100 out of the 145 questions contained in Kassab’s DWQ. See
Pohl’s Objections to Kassab’s DWQ, attached as Exhibit 3 to the Motion. Kassab appears to be
concerned about “objections to several of the questions,” but Kassab does not specify which
objections or questions are at issue. See Motion at 1–2. Pohl will not waste thke Court’s time
addressing each objection to the 100 potential questions that could be at issule. Each of Pohl’s
form objections state a basis for the objection that is supported on the facec of the objection and the
request to which it is addressed. See generally Pohl’s Objections to sKassab’s DWQ, attached as
Exhibit 3 to the Motion. However, to illustrate the appropriatenesss of his objections, Pohl provides
the brief discussion of some examples below.
Kassab’s Question #3 states: “How state how many businesses have you managed in any
compacity and the names of those businesses during your entire business carrier?” See id. at 2
(errors in original). Given the typos, Pohl oabjected to the question and pointed out the various
issues, including that, “Pohl objects to the form of this question, as it contains typos and is
confusing, and it is thus vague and amebiguous.” See id. Pohl specifically pointed out that the first
word of the question, “how” appfears to be a typo. See id. It makes no sense to say “how state
how,” in the context of a quyestion. Pohl also pointed out that the spellings of “compacity” and
“carrier” appear to be iCncorrect, at least in the context of this question. See id. On the face of the
question, Pohl’s objections are proper and supported, and the Court should sustain such objections.
Anothefrf example is Kassab’s Question #15, which states: “Is PMG a marketing company?”
See id. atU 4. Pohl objected to this question on the following bases: “Pohl objects to the form of
this question, as it is vague. Pohl also objects to the form of this question because it is not limited
in time or scope.” See id. The question is vague, because it is not clear what Kassab meant by the
phrase “marketing company.” And the question is not limited in time or scope, because Kassab
did not ask about whether PMG was a “marketing company” during a specific period or otherwise
limit the scope of this question. PMG (Precision) engaged in different activities, at different times,
under different ownership. Kassab’s failure to specify a time period is objectionable.
Finally, in Question #18, Kassab asked: “Did PMG compile marketing lkists?” Id. at 5.
Pohl objected to this question on multiple grounds, including that it was vague, lnot limited in time,
and called for speculation. See id. Given that Favre purchased PMG acfter it is alleged to have
engaged in so-called “marketing” activities, there is no basis for Favres to have personal knowledge
of PMG “compil[ing] marketing lists.” See id. Thus, Kasssab’s question seeks for Favre to
speculate in response. The question is vague and ambiguous, because the meaning of the phrase
“marketing list,” is unclear, especially given the disputes about the use of this term in this lawsuit.
And the question is not limited in time, because Kassab did not ask about whether PMG compiled
“marketing lists” during a specified relevant taime period.
Pohl’s objections to these three questions are exemplars that show that Pohl made
reasonable objections to facially objeectionable questions asserted by Kassab. A simple review of
each question and the objection fitself is sufficient to support such objections. Because Pohl’s
objections are proper on theiyr face, Pohl requests that the Court sustain those objections and deny
Kassab’s Motion. C
III. CONCLUSION
For the fforegoing reasons, Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl
respectfuUlly request that Kassab’s Motion be denied and that the Court sustain Pohl’s objections
to the questions contained in Kassab’s DWQ.
Dated: March 14, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650 k
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e
Houston, Texas 77002 l
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250 c
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom
Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERrVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 14th day of March, 2023.
M /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
 Jean C. Frizzell
10
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 73666907
Filing Code Description: Answer/ Response / Waiver
Filing Description: Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Kassatb's Motion to
Rule i
Status as of 3/15/2023 8:41 AM CST s
Case Contacts 
Name BarNumber Email gTimestampSubmitted Status
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbarar.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo 24003021 suazoc@mdjwlaw.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cafin@mdjwlaw.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre C scott@favrepa.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade a lawyerwade@hotmail.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Misty Davis o mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Lance KassabU eserve@kassab.law 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez andrea@kassab.law 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Lance Kassab lance@kassab.law 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
David Kassab david@kassab.law 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassab.law 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
D Kassab david@kassab.law 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Kelly Skelton reception@kassab.law 3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 73666907
Filing Code Description: Answer/ Response / Waiver
Filing Description: Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Kassatb's Motion to
Rule i
Status as of 3/15/2023 8:41 AM CST s
Case Contacts 
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com g3/14/2023 9:54:18 PM SENT"
52,2023-03-08,RSP,Pohl,Response to Mtn to Reconsider/Rule,Plaintiffs' Response in Partial Opposition to Kassab's Motion to Reconsider or Rule,"Filed March 8, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court (Judge Weems) by Pohl's counsel Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Response to Kassab's Motion to Reconsider or Rule (filing #49), which sought reconsideration of three prior orders by Judge Dollinger. Pohl partially opposes — agreeing the court should rule on the pending RTP motion but opposing reconsideration of the abatement and discovery compulsion rulings.",MSJ-2R,N/A,Phase 4,2023-03-08_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-or-Rule_FILED.pdf,Deny Kassab's Motion in part; deny Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion on the merits; decline to reconsider prior rulings on Kassab's Motion to Abate and Motion to Compel,"3/8/2023 7:39 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 73486867
By: Lewis John-Miller
Filed: 3/8/2023 7:39 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiffs, §
V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS
§ e
LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l
KASSAB, et. al § 
§ c
Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER OR RULE s
Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C. d/b/a/ The
Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”) filed the Motion to Reconsider or Rule (the “Motion”),
and in it states he filed it in order to file a petition for writ of mandamus if the Motion is denied.
Pohl partially opposes the relief Kassab requests in his Motion. Pohl does not oppose the Court
ruling on Kassab’s pending motion to designate responsible third parties—although Pohl contends
that motion should be denied when thee Court addresses it on the merits. However, Pohl does not
agree that the Court should reconfsider or revisit the other two rulings mentioned in the Motion,
and Kassab has not shown hyow any prior ruling was erroneous.
C I. DISCUSSION
Kassab asksa the Court to rule on one pending motion and to reconsider rulings on two other
motions. Kassafb is not entitled to relief on the merits with respect to any of those three motions.
First, the Court should rule on Kassab’s Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third
Parties (“Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion”), but it should deny the relief Kassab requests.
Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion does not fix the pleading defect that caused Judge Dollinger
to deny Kassab’s first motion to designate responsible third parties. Second, Kassab provides no
basis for why the Court should reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Abate Trial Setting
(“Kassab’s Motion to Abate”), and the Court should not allow Kassab to delay trial. Third, the
Court should not reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Compel Testimony and Documents
Pursuant to the Offensive Use Doctrine (“Kassab’s Motion to Compel”). Kassab’s arguments on
the offensive-use doctrine fail on the merits. k
A. The Court should deny Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion. C l
Pohl agrees that the Court should rule on Kassab’s Supplemental cRTP Motion. However,
the Court should deny that motion on the merits. To designate a ressponsible third party, Kassab
must plead sufficient facts showing that alleged responsible third parties were responsible for the
harms underlying Pohl’s claims. Kassab failed to do that in his first motion, and his supplemental
motion—which asserts the same prior factual allegations in a new order—does not fix this defect.
Kassab’s failure to plead new factual allegations gives the Court a straightforward way to
resolve Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion. Deny it. While this case was pending before the
189th District Court, Judge Dollinger denied Kassab’s first motion to designate responsible third
parties because Kassab failed to pleaed sufficient facts showing that the alleged responsible third
parties were responsible for the hafr f ms underlying Pohl’s claims.1 Judge Dollinger’s ruling reached
the proper result, and with nyo new factual allegations, the same result is appropriate here.
As laid out in PCohl’s Objection, Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion did not address the
failings of the origianal motion—instead, it simply copies and paraphrases, in a new order, prior
factual allegatiofns that Judge Dollinger found to be deficient. See generally Pohl’s Objection to
Kassab’sU Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed Nov. 30, 2022.
Because Kassab chose to assert the same facts, which were previously found to be insufficient
under the pleading standard, the Court should deny Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion.
1 See Court Order, dated Oct. 31, 2022 (denying Kassab’s first motion to designate responsible third parties); see also
generally Pohl’s Objection to Kassab’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed May 31, 2022.
B. Kassab’s Motion to Abate was properly denied.
In the fall of 2022, Kassab filed his Motion to Abate. Judge Dollinger correctly found that
abatement of this case was not proper or necessary. Nothing has changed since that ruling
occurred, and the Court should decline to revisit the denial of Kassab’s Motion to kAbate.
Kassab does not explain why he believes that Judge Dollinger’s decisioln to deny Kassab’s
Motion to Abate was wrong. See generally Motion. Instead, Kassab sucggests that abatement is
justified because he contends that “the outcome of Cheatham could sresult in a judgment against
Pohl for barratry, which will definitively establish Kassab’s defenses to Pohl’s claims.” See id. at
2. That is not true, and Pohl’s Response to the Kassab Defendants’ Motion to Abate Trial Setting,
filed Sept. 15, 2022 (“Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Motion to Abate”), clearly explains why
abatement is not appropriate.
Even if barratry were relevant in this matter—and it is not—the results in a separate lawsuit
in which Pohl, but not Kassab, is a party cannot establish Kassab’s defenses in this lawsuit.
Kassab’s Motion to Abate argues abeatement is proper for two reasons: (1) Pohl is still incurring
damages; and (2) the outcome off a separate lawsuit—the Cheatham case—will impact Kassab’s
illegality (unlawful acts doyctrine) defense. See generally Kassab’s Motion to Abate. These
arguments did not withCstand scrutiny.
First, the faact that this case might involve future damages does not justify abatement.
Future damagesf are not an uncommon occurrence, and to recover such damages, Pohl must satisfy
the ordinUary standard of showing to the jury that he will sustain those damages with reasonable
probability. Second, Kassab’s unlawful acts defense has been preempted and does not apply—a
fact which is laid out in Pohl’s Response to Kassab’s Motion to Abate. Because nothing has
changed since the Motion to Abate was correctly ruled on in the first instance, the Court should
deny Kassab’s request to reconsider that ruling.
C. Kassab has not shown that Pohl waived the attorney–client privilege, and thus
Kassab’s Motion to Compel was properly denied.
Kassab provides no explanation for why the Court should reconsider Judge Dollinger’s
denial of Kassab’s Motion to Compel. Kassab improperly sought to pierce the attorney–client
privilege, but he failed to show how the legal elements of the offensive-use dorctrine were met.
Kassab’s Motion does nothing to explain why Kassab’s position was right on the merits, and the
Court should deny the Motion without revisiting this decision. r i
In his Motion to Compel, Kassab improperly sought to oDbtain attorney–client privileged
materials between Pohl and Billy Shepherd (Pohl’s current attosrney in the Cheatham matter). See
generally Motion to Compel. Kassab is particularly inrterested in obtaining these privileged
materials because Kassab is counsel to the plaintiffs who are suing Pohl in the Cheatham matter.
Thus, in this lawsuit, Kassab sought to obtain prlivileged materials from a third party who is his
opposing counsel in the Cheatham matter. M
Given that Kassab’s Motion too Compel was filed in conjunction with multiple other
discovery motions, Pohl filed a joinct response that addressed it as well as other discovery motions
filed by Kassab. See Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to the Kassab Defendants’ Three New
Motions to Compel, at 7–16, filed Sept. 27, 2022. For the reasons stated in that response, the Court
should deny Kassab’s request to reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Compel. Not only
has Kassab failedc to establish offensive-use waiver, but independently, it was a reasonable exercise
of Judge Dol o linger’s discretion to deny Kassab’s attempt to obtain this privileged information.2
Therefore, the Court should decline to reconsider this ruling and should deny the Motion.
2 Kassab never showed that he diligently pursued the discovery sought in the Motion to Compel prior to the close of
discovery. Given this, and that Kassab sought privileged materials from Pohl’s counsel (who is opposing counsel to
Kassab in another lawsuit), Judge Dollinger was entitled to exercise his discretion to limit the scope of discovery and
deny Kassab access to privileged materials. See In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003) (“scope of
discovery is within the trial court’s discretion”); In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 599 (Tex. 2017) (“discovery
rules imbue trial courts with the authority to limit discovery based on the needs and circumstances of the case”).
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl
respectfully request that the Court deny Kassab’s Motion, in part; deny Kassab’s Supplemental
RTP Motion; and decline to reconsider prior rulings on Kassab’s Motion to Abatke and Kassab’s
Motion to Compel. l
Dated: March 8, 2023 Respectfully submitted, c
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LsLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Fsrizzell
State Bar No. 07484650
1100 Louisiarna St., Suite 3500
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250
jfrizlzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com
MAttorney for Plaintiffs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CEcRTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texasy Rules of Civil Procedure on this 8th day of March, 2023.
/s/ Jean C. Frizzell
a Jean C. Frizzell
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 73486867
Status as of 3/9/2023 8:36 AM CST
Case Contacts r i
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/s8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.comg3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.com u3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrar.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.comy 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10607900 jefferson@mdjwalaw.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo 24003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdojwlaw.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttayflor@jandflaw.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Lance Kassab peserve@kassab.law 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Harris Wells C hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre a l scott@favrepa.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez o andrea@kassab.law 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Lance KassabU lance@kassab.law 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
David Kassab david@kassab.law 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassab.law 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
D Kassab david@kassab.law 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Kelly Skelton reception@kassab.law 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 3/8/2023 7:39:40 PM SENT"
38,2022-09-15,RSP,Pohl,Pohl’s response to MTA,"Plaintiffs' Response to the Kassab Defendants' Motion to Abate Trial Setting — opposes abatement of four-year-old case on eve of preferential trial setting, arguing future damages do not justify abatement and unlawful acts defense has been preempted","Response filed September 15, 2022 by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP opposing Kassab's motion to abate the trial setting in a four-year-old case with a preferential trial setting. Incorporates by reference Pohl's September 12, 2022 responses to defendants' summary judgment motions.",MTA-1,N/A,Phase 3,2022-09-15_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-MTA-Trial_FILED.pdf,Deny Kassab's Motion to Abate Trial Setting and allow the case to proceed to trial during its current preferential trial setting,"9/15/2022 5:08 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 68313271
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 9/15/2022 5:08 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, §
Plaintiffs, §
v. § k
§ e
SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l
LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c
LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, § r
P.C. d/b/a THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA §
NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, LLP §
d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW FIRM; and § s
DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and MONTAGUE §
PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § g
Defendants. § r HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO ABATEy TRIAL SETTING
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officaes of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) file this
this response to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.’s
(collectively, “Kassab”) Motion to Abeate Trial Setting (the “Motion to Abate”). Pohl requests that
the Court deny Kassab’s Motion fto Abate and allow this four-year-old case to be tried during its
current preferential trial settiyng—a trial setting that Kassab appears to be trying to avoid.
Kassab argues Cthat this case should be abated for two reasons: (1) Pohl is still incurring
damages; and (2) the outcome of a separate lawsuit—the Cheatham case—will impact Kassab’s
illegality (unlafwfful acts doctrine) defense. Neither argument has merit. First, the existence of
future daUmages does not justify abatement. For Pohl to recover future damages, he must satisfy
the ordinary standard of showing to the jury that he will sustain those damages with reasonable
probability. Second, Kassab’s unlawful acts defense has been preempted and does not apply—a
defense Kassab acknowledged in another case is “no longer good law.”
I. BACKGROUND1
Kassab’s campaign of lawsuits and bar grievances against Pohl can only be described as a
failure. Kassab facilitated the filing of seven separate grievances with the Texas State Bar and
four lawsuits—all based on Kassab’s theory that Pohl engaged in alleged barrkatrous conduct.
Every grievance failed, often with a finding that Pohl’s alleged conduct ldid not constitute
professional misconduct or a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules ocf Professional Conduct.
Two of the lawsuits resulted in a final judgment on the merits in favosr of Pohl. In a third lawsuit,
Pohl settled the lawsuit—not for the “substantial sum of money” alleged by Kassab—but instead
for an amount less than the cost of defense. It is the fourth case, the Cheatham case, that Kassab’s
Motion to Abate is concerned with.
It is worth noting that although the Cheatham case is pending, the allegations asserted in
that case are without merit. Like Kassab’s recycled barratry allegations in this lawsuit, many of
the allegations of supposed barratry by Pohl in Cheatham were the subject of a grievance that
Kassab helped file. The Office of ethe Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar of Texas
dismissed the grievance after it hafd “examined the Grievance and determined that the information
alleged does not demonstrayte Professional Misconduct or a Disability.”2 Kassab appealed the
dismissal of the CheathCam grievance, and The Board of Disciplinary Appeals (which is appointed
by the Texas Supreame Court) determined “that the conduct you described in the grievance does
not violate the Tfexas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.”3
WUhen the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel found that allegations involved in the
Cheatham case did not “demonstrate Professional Misconduct,” the Cheatham case was on appeal
1 To avoid duplicative recitations of the factual background of this case, to the extent necessary, Pohl refers the Court
to the factual background included in his September 12, 2022 responses to Defendants’ summary judgment motions.
2 See Feb. 24, 2020 Letter from State Bar of Texas: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, attached as Exhibit 1.
3 See May 14, 2020 Letter from The Board of Disciplinary Appeals, attached as Exhibit 2.
following a final judgment in favor of Pohl.4 Recently, the court of appeals reversed the trial court,
not because it found that barratry occurred, but because it believed the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment on the basis of limitations and whether the barratry statute was impermissibly
applied extraterritorially. See Cheatham, 2022 WL 3720139, at *9–10. Pohl is coknfident that this
case—which involves “[t]wo sets of wrongful-death claimants” out of the “l10,000 or more of
Pohl’s clients/prospective clients” whose information defendants cmisappropriated—will
ultimately be resolved in Pohl’s favor. Id. at *1; Pohl’s First Amendesd Petition ¶ 21. Regardless,
the outcome of the Cheatham case is not relevant to Pohl’s claimss or entitlement to damages. The
relevance of that case is that the fees and expenses Pohl incurs in defending it are a component of
Pohl’s actual damages in this lawsuit.
II. DISyCUSSION
Kassab presents two justifications for why abatement is necessary. First, he suggests that
the fact that Pohl may continue to suffer damages in connection with defending the Cheatham case
means the Court should wait to resolvee Pohl’s claims. Second, Kassab argues that the Cheatham
case is relevant to his “illegality”f defense. Neither argument has merit. Future damages are an
entirely normal occurrence thyat does not justify abatement of a case. Kassab’s affirmative defenses
are either preempted orC have little relevance. Regardless, they do not justify Kassab’s request for
abatement on the evae of trial.
A. The fpotential existence of future damages does not support abatement.
As the Court is surely familiar with, cases frequently arise and are tried despite the fact that
a party may not have suffered the full extent of the damages they will likely incur. In fact, Texas
4 See Cheatham v. Pohl, No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 WL 3720139, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30,
2022, no pet. h.) (noting the trial court entered a “final and appealable” order in Pohl’s favor); see also Notices of
Appeal filed on Jan. 15 & 17, 2022 in Cause No. 2017-41110, Mark K Cheatham, Sr., et al, v. Michael A. Pohl, et al.,
in the 55th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, attached as Exhibit 3.
law often requires an injured party to bring their claims even when “all resulting damages have
not yet occurred.” See Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Pasko, 544 S.W.3d 830, 834 (Tex. 2018)
(citation omitted) (discussing accrual of claims in the context of a statute of limitations). If the
fact that a party will continue to suffer damages required abating a case, there wokuld not be trials
in cases involving damages for lost profits, damages for loss of earning capaclity, or damages for
future medical expenses. Those cases go to trial, and the result should bec no different here.
The concept of future, and thus necessarily uncertain, damagess is not novel. In fact, there
is a standard for how a jury can analyze these types of damagess. See, e.g., GTE Mobilnet of S.
Tex. Ltd. P’ship v. Pascouet, 61 S.W.3d 599, 617 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet.
denied) (discussing how a jury has discretion to award future damages that a party “in reasonable
probability will sustain in the future”). Given the existence of this standard, the fact that a case
involves future damages that are uncertain is naot sufficient to show that abatement is proper.
Kassab’s primary case to support his theory that Pohl’s future damages justify an abatement
is In re Tex. Collegiate Baseball Leageue, Ltd., 367 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no
pet.). See Motion to Abate, at f3–4 (citing Collegiate Baseball League). However, the facts
underlying that case are entiyrely dissimilar to those of this case, and the fact that abatement was
proper in that case doeCs not provide any useful guidance in this case.
Collegiate Baseball League involved a lawyer who was sued by two clients over an alleged
settlement agrefefment. 367 S.W.3d 462, 464 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). The lawyer
asserted Ua counterclaim for recovery of his legal fees, and his clients subsequently asserted
malpractice claims against him based on three separate lawsuits that were still pending. Id. The
issue before the appellate court was over whether abatement or severance of the malpractice claims
was proper, and whether the attorneys’ fees claim should also be subject to any abatement or
severance. Id. at 465.
To understand the court’s decision in Collegiate Baseball League, it is important to know
that the parties did not dispute that the malpractice claims were premature. k Id. The claim
for fees brought by the lawyer involved fees he charged in connection withl the three pending
cases—the same three cases that were at issue in the clients’ malpractice cclaims against the lawyer.
Id. at 465–66. Given this, the court found that “[s]everance or sepsarate trials are therefore not
appropriate because the fee claim and the malpractice claims insvolve the same facts and issues.”
Id. at 467. The court also found abatement was appropriate, because severing the fees claim could
cause certain parties “to simultaneously take inconsistent litigation positions.” Id. at 467. It is in
this context that the court notes that “the malpractice allegations and damage theories will remain
fluid until the [other] litigations conclude.” Ida.
The issues present in the Collegiate Baseball League case are not analogous to those before
the Court. The Court is not faced wieth a situation where severance or abatement is required, and
it then must decide the scope of thfe severance or abatement. Nor does the Cheatham case and this
lawsuit involve the same facyts and issues. The shared issue is the far more common occurrence
that the full extent of PCohl’s damages has not been incurred at this time. The Court should deny
Kassab’s Motion to Abate, as the existence of future damages does not justify abatement.
B. Kasfsfab’s defense has been preempted and does not entitle him to abatement.
KUassab’s argues that under his “illegality” (unlawful acts doctrine) defense, “[i]f the
Cheatham plaintiffs establish these barratry claims against Pohl, then Pohl cannot be permitted to
recover any damages arising from his unlawful conduct.” Motion to Abate at 4.5 This is not
5 Kassab also mentions his “unclean hands” defense once, without any explanation. Motion to Abate at 2. He simply
states that the outcome of the Cheatham case will establish his “unclean hands” defense and as a result, “Pohl would
correct for multiple reasons.6 First, Kassab’s defense is not valid, as it was preempted years ago
by Texas’s proportionate responsibility statute. Second, even if the unlawful acts doctrine were
available as a defense, Kassab has not shown, or even alleged, how Pohl’s damages or injury in
this lawsuit were proximately caused by Pohl’s alleged unlawful conduct. Regkardless of any
unproven barratrous conduct, Pohl is entitled to recover damages that resultedl from defendants’
conversion and misappropriation of Pohl’s confidential information and fciles.
First, Kassab failed to disclose on-point authority from the Tsexas Supreme Court stating
that Kassab’s defense has been statutorily preempted. The sole scase Kassab cites for his unlawful
acts or illegality defense is Andrew Shebay & Co., P.L.L.C. v. Bishop, 429 S.W.3d 644 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). Kassab’s “illegality” defense is also known as the
“unlawful acts doctrine.”7 However, after the court’s ruling in Bishop, the Texas Supreme Court
ruled that “[t]he plain language of section 33.a003 clearly indicates that the common law unlawful
acts doctrine is no longer a viable defense.” Dugger, 408 S.W.3d at 832.
Kassab—and lead counsel fore the Kassab law firm, David Kassab—should be aware that
Kassab’s asserted defense is no flonger viable, as demonstrated by the following argument they
made in a different case: y
be entitled to no damiages from Kassab.” Id. While the lack of explanation or argument from Kassab makes it
unnecessary to address this issue more fully, it is worth pointing out that “unclean hands” is a defense to equitable
relief that applies fwhen a party engaged in wrongful conduct that harmed the person raising the unclean hands defense.
See In re Nolle, 265 S.W.3d 487, 494 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Damages are not equitable
relief, and Kassab has not alleged that Pohl’s alleged conduct in the Cheatham case has harmed him. Thus, Kassab’s
“unclean hands” defense is not applicable and cannot support abatement of this case.
6 Kassab also does not explain how the outcome, as opposed to the facts, of the Cheatham case will impact this case.
It is not clear how any outcome in that case, which involves different parties, could have a preclusive effect in this
lawsuit. Furthermore, Kassab does not explain what further factual development will occur in the Cheatham case that
is necessary or impactful to the issues in this case.
7 Compare Dugger v. Arredondo, 408 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. 2013) (stating that “this Court recognized the common
law unlawful acts doctrine as barring a plaintiff from recovering damages if it could be shown that, at the time of
injury, the plaintiff was engaged in an illegal act that contributed to the injury”), with Bishop, 429 S.W.3d at 648–49
(describing the defense, cited by Kassab, as providing that if “at the time of the plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff was
engaged in an illegal act, and that act contributed to the injury, he may not recover”).
[T]he Texas Supreme Court has reiterated that “the comparative responsibility
scheme under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code abrogated
the unlawful acts doctrine.” Boerjan v. Rodriguez, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 531 at *7
(Tex. 2014)(citing Dugger v. Arredondo, 408 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 2013)). Thus, the
illegal acts doctrine may not be used as a ground to support summary judgment
even if it is recast as a public policy argument. Id. (“Applying Dugger to this case,
the unlawful acts doctrine cannot provide the basis for summary judgmentk.”).8
Kassab was correct then. The unlawful acts doctrine is no longer a valid defenlse.
Second, even if Kassab’s use of the unlawful acts doctrine werec not preempted, Kassab
would still have to show that Pohl’s alleged barratry was “a prosximate cause of the injury
complained of in order to bar [Pohl’s] recovery.” See Arredondo v. Dugger, 347 S.W.3d 757,
761–62 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011), aff’d on other grounds, 408 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 2013). Even if
Pohl had committed barratry, it did not proximately cause Pohl’s injuries giving rise to his claims
here—defendants’ conversion and misappropriation of Pohl’s confidential and proprietary
information. Kassab’s unsupported assertions that the outcome of the Cheatham case matters or
impacts Pohl’s claims in this case should be rejected, and the Court should deny the Motion to
Abate. e
fIII. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs Michael Poyhl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl respectfully request that the
Court deny Kassab’s Motion to Abate for the reasons set forth herein. Regardless of whether Pohl
is likely to incur fuarther damages in connection with the Cheatham case, and regardless of the
outcome of thatf case, Pohl is entitled to a trial on the merits of his claims. Abatement is neither
required nor appropriate in these circumstances.
8 See Plaintiffs’ Objections and Response to Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, dated Sept.
15, 2014, in Cause No. 2011-75990, William Beatty, et al, v. Jimmy Van Knighton, II, et al., in the 133rd Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas (a copy of this briefing is attached as Exhibit 4).
Dated: September 15, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650 k
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e
Houston, Texas 77002 l
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250 c
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom
Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct coply of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 15th day of September, 2022.
o /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
e Jean C. Frizzell
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell e
Bar No. 7484650 C
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com t
Envelope ID: 68313271 r
Status as of 9/16/2022 8:04 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimsestampSubmitted Status
Solace Southwick ssouthwick@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Zandra EFoley zfoley@thompsoncoe.com r9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Andrew J. Sarne asarne@krcl.com  9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Kathryn Laflin KLaflin@KRCL.com l 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrar.coam 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.comM 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Jason M.Ciofalo jason@ciofalolaw.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandeflaw.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@freynoldsfrizzell.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre oscott@favrepa.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez Candrea@kassab.law 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Lance Kassab  lance@kassab.law 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
David Kassab david@kassab.law 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassab.law 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10f607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo n24003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Kevin Graham CainU24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
D Kassab david@kassab.law 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 9/15/2022 5:08:42 PM SENT"
34,2022-09-12,RSP,Kassab,Kassab’s response to Pohl no-evid MSJ,"Kassab's Response to Pohl's Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses — opposes Pohl's attempt to eliminate Kassab's affirmative defenses of justification, unclean hands, illegality, unlawful acts, criminal acts, and in pari delicto, and challenges Pohl's global no-evidence motion as procedurally defective under Timpte Industries v. Gish","Phase 3 response brief filed September 12, 2022 (same day as Kassab's declaration, Filing #33). Responds to Pohl's motion seeking to eliminate Kassab's key affirmative defenses before trial. Incorporates by reference Kassab's own MSJs (June 8, 2021 and August 29, 2022, i.e. Filing #30), the Nicholson MSJ (August 19, 2022), and Nicholson's response to Pohl's motion (September 12, 2022). Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger.",MSJ-3,N/A,Phase 3,2022-09-12_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf,"Deny Pohl's Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses; alternatively, grant continuance under Rule 166a(g) to allow completion of discovery on illegality defense; grant summary judgment against Plaintiffs ordering they take nothing on their claims against Kassab","9/12/2022 6:16 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 68179652
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 9/12/2022 6:16 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT
THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFSC’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR:
Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.
d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this, theeir Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Suummary Judgment on Affirmative
Defenses,1 and would respectfully show the following.
INTRaODUCTION
Pohl2 committed illegal and unethical barratry and he wants Kassab, who
brought the barratry litigation aend grievances against Pohl on behalf of more than
four hundred (400) of Pohl’fs illegally solicited clients, to pay for Pohl’s barratry
defense costs. But Pohl’s claims are barred for several reasons, including based on
several affirmative defenses. Pohl has filed the instant Motion, seeking partial
traditional summiary judgment on the affirmative defenses of justification, unclean
hands, illegoality, and unlawful acts. However, Pohl has not negated those defenses
as a matter of law. As to the other defenses, Pohl attempts to dispose of them
through a global and conclusory no-evidence challenge, which is insufficient.
1 The self-serving title of the pleading is “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses that Seek to Relitigate Failed Barratry Claims Against Plaintiffs
and No-Evidence Motion on the Remaining Affirmative Defenses.”
2 This refers collectively to Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC.
Regardless, Kassab can demonstrate, either here or in incorporated summary
judgment briefing, that each of the defenses applicable to him apply, and that
evidence supports each of them. Accordingly, the Motion should be in all things
denied. k
GENERAL OBJECTION C
Pohl inappropriately suggests that all barratry suits were resolved on the
merits. That is incorrect. One of the lawsuits – the Berry caise – was settled,3 which
suggests that the case had merit. Another lawsuit – the Cheatham case – was
initially dismissed on summary judgment but recently reversed because fact issues
existed on whether Pohl and his co-counsel committed barratry. See Cheatham v.
Pohl, No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 Tex. Appl. LEXIS 6528 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] Aug. 30, 2022, no pet. h.). TheM other two lawsuits – Brumfield and Gandy –
were dismissed, not on the merits, but on the affirmative defense of limitations. See
Brumfield v. Williamson, 634 iS.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021,
pet. denied) and Gandy v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2021, pet. denoied). “An affirmative defense presents a situation where a
plaintiff cannot relcover even if his claims are true because of some other fact that
the defendant ihas pled as a bar.” Man Engines & Components, Inc. v. Shows, 434
S.W.3d 132, 137 (Tex. 2014), In other words, none of the barratry suits have
been adjudicated on the merits, and neither has the issue of whether Pohl
committed barratry.
3 Exhibit 1, September 12, 2022 Declaration of Lance Kassab at ¶ 14.
Kassab incorporates and adopts by reference all evidence and argument in
his Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed on August 29, 2022. See TEX. R.
CIV. P. 58. Kassab also incorporate all evidence and argument in the Traditional
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina Nicholson and Baker Nikcholson, LLP
(“Nicholson”) on August 19, 2022, as well as Nicholson’s responsCe to Pohl’s Motion
filed September 12, 2022, to the extent that response is applicable to Kassab. The
combined evidence and argument of all those documents diemonstrate conclusively
that Pohl committed barratry and unauthorized practice of law, which bars him
from recovery in this retaliatory lawsuit.
RESPONSE TO TRADITIONAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A. Justification is a valid laffirmative defense to Pohl’s
claims. a
Kassab has asserted the affirmative defense of justification.4 Pohl contends
that justification “is not a defenese to any of Pohl’s claims.”5 Of course, Pohl fails to
support this statement with fany authority. Rather, he contends that justification “is
an affirmative defense to a claim of tortious interference with contract.”6 But just
because the defense is commonly applied to one type of claim does not mean, as Pohl
contends, that iti is “not a recognized defense” to other types of claims, such as theft
of trade secorets, conversion or conspiracy.7 In fact, the defense of justification has
been applied outside the context of tortious interference to anti-trust claims. See
Money Masters, Inc. v. TRW, Inc., No. 05-98-02017-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 622,
4 See Kassab’s Sixth Amended Answer, at ¶ 15(2).
5 Mot. at 2.
6 Mot. at 3.
7 Mot. at 3.
at *17 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 23, 2003, pet. denied) (mem. op.). And, Texas courts
have considered the defense in relation to theft of trade secrets. See Lamont v.
Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd., 421 S.W.3d 198, 220 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013,
pet. denied) (determining whether evidence supported defense of jukstification to
claim that seismic map of a gas prospect constituted a tradCe secret and was
acquired through improper means). Accordingly, Pohl has failed to demonstrate
that the defense of justification is inapplicable as a matter iof law.
Pohl argues that even if the defense applies, Kassab and Nicholson cannot
show that “Pohl took any action against them or that involved them before they
committed the torts that form the basis of Pohl’s claim.”8 But Pohl misunderstands
the nature of the justification defense, andl the factual basis giving rise to it.
Justification can be based on Mthe exercise of either (1) the party’s own legal
rights or (2) the party’s good faith claim to a colorable right, even though the claim
ultimately proves to be mistakien. Tex. Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 211
(Tex. 1996). When the party conclusively establishes it had a legal right to engage
in the complained-of oconduct, the party's motive for engaging in that conduct is
irrelevant. Id. l
Here, Kiassab was justified in obtaining the information that Pohl contends is
his purported trade secrets. The information was obtained by Kassab as part of his
investigation and ultimate pursuit of barratry claims against Pohl on behalf of
hundreds of clients.9 Kassab concluded, based on discussions he had with and
8 Mot. at 3.
9 Exhibit 1, September 12, 2022 Declaration of Lance Kassab at ¶¶ 5-8.
documents obtained from Scott Favre, the owner of Precision Marketing, that the
information was owned by Precision Marketing, and not Pohl.10 In fact, Favre
testified that Precision Marketing owned the information, including client lists and
files the company acquired while soliciting clients,11 and shared wkith Kassab a
purchase agreement demonstrating that Favre was the owner oCf that information
through his purchase of Precision Marketing.12
Kassab had a legal right to acquire evidence to supiport the barratry claims
that would be made against Pohl on behalf of his clients without making himself
liable. See Taylor v. Tolbert, 644 S.W.3d 637, 647 (Tex. 2022) (“lawyers must be able
to pursue legal rights they deem necessary and proper for their clients without the
menace of civil liability looming over theml and influencing their actions.”). And in
carrying out that lawyerly duty, KasMsab had the right and obligation to investigate
the potential claims against Pohl or risk sanctions for not investigating the claims.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 13. Kassaib was also justified in obtaining the information to
report Pohl to the State B
ar of Texas, which he did.13 See TEX. DISC. R. PROF’L COND.
8.03 (“a lawyer havinog knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of
applicable rules ofl professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that
lawyer's honesity, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall
inform the appropriate disciplinary authority.”); TEX. R. DISC. PROC. 17.09 (“No
lawsuit may be instituted against any Complainant or witness predicated upon the
10 Exhibit 1, September 12, 2022 Declaration of Lance Kassab at ¶¶ 8.
11 Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Scott Favre.
12 Exhibit 3, Purchase Agreement.
13 Exhibit 4, October 2018 Declaration of Lance Kassab, at p. 2; Exhibit 5, Grievance Complaint.
filing of a Grievance or participation in the attorney disciplinary and disability
system.”).
Under these circumstances, there are genuine issues of material fact as to
whether Kassab was justified in the actions that he took. k
B. Kassab may assert unclean hands as a defensCe because
Pohl seeks equitable relief. 
Kassab asserts unclean hands as a defense becauset Pohl seeks injunctive
relief and attorney’s fees as damages under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act
(“TUTSA”). To the extent Pohl is permitted to seeke attorney’s fees as damages, his
unclean hands bar him from recovering under suuch an equitable exception.
Pohl’s summary judgment is based on the false premise that he “does not
seek equitable relief.”14 That contentioan is rebutted by Pohl’s own pleadings. Pohl
has pursued claims under TUTSA, which requires a person claiming ownership of a
trade secret to demonstrate “legeal, or equitable” title to the information. See TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§f 134A.002(3-a) (emphasis added). Additionally, “Pohl
seeks injunctive relief”15 and it is well-established that “[i]njunctive relief is an
equitable remedy.” Fetter v. Wells Fargo Bank Tex., N.A., 110 S.W.3d 683, 688
(Tex. App.—Houiston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (emphasis added). Moreover, Pohl’s
conclusion roequests “other and further or alternative relief (legal and equitable) to
which Pohl may be entitled,”16 for all of his causes of action. Because Pohl is seeking
equitable relief, he “must come into court with clean hands.” Fetter, 110 S.W.3d at
14 Mot. at 4.
15 See Pohl’s First Amended Petition, at ¶ 45.
16 Pohl’s First Amended Petition, at ¶ 50 (emphasis added).
688. Pohl’s contention that unclean hands is not a valid affirmative defense fails as
a matter of law.
C. Illegality.
1. Objection to Pohl’s lack of supporting evidencke.
Kassab objects to Pohl’s lack of evidence supporting his traCditional summary
judgment motion as to illegality. Pohl asserts that illegality does not apply because
it “is not part of a document,” and he “engaged in ‘illegal aicts” long before” Kassab
allegedly wronged Pohl.17 Pohl then incorrectly implies that his acts of barratry
“[have] largely been adjudicated” on the merits.18 That is untrue, as demonstrated
above. Pohl also asserts that his “claims do not seek to enforce any illegal contract
or other illegal action.”19 But Pohl prlovides no evidence in support of his
statements, and “motions and argumMents of counsel are not evidence.” Johnson v.
Scott, 113 S.W.3d 366, 373 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied). It is telling
that Pohl is unwilling to sweair to any of these facts in an affidavit. Kassab objects
to Pohl’s lack of summary judgment evidence.
2. Poohl has not negated the illegality defense.
Pohl arguesl that the illegality defense “is not a defense” to his claims, “and
even if it werei, it would not be available here.”20 Of course, Pohl does not cite any
case precluding the use of the illegality defense in claims arising from barratry.
This is because the defense has commonly been applied to bar claims stemming
17 Mot., at 4.
18 Mot., at 4-5.
19 Mot., at 5.
20 Mot., at 4.
from barratry. See Luong v. McAllister, No. 01-17-00198-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS
5998, at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 2, 2018, pet. denied) (contract
between law firm and non-lawyer to solicit clients in exchange for share of
attorney’s fees was void due to illegality); Plumlee v. Paddock, 832 S.Wk.2d 757, 760
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (refusing equitable relCief where owner of
ambulance company had no basis to recover under fee-sharing agreement with
attorney without reliance on unlawful barratry agreemenit). And Pohl’s lawyers
are well aware of this doctrine. They recently used the illegality defense to
obtain summary judgment on a legal malpractice claim brought by an investor who
gave an attorney money in exchange for a share of attorneys’ fees from the BP
litigation. See Duncan Litig. Invs., LLC vl. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz, No. 4:19-CV-3094, 2022 UM.S. Dist. LEXIS 147005, at *24-30 (S.D. Tex.
2022). Moreover, as demonstrated in the summary judgment briefing on file with
the Court, Pohl and his lawyeirs in the Mississippi Litigation also used the illegality
defense to Precisions Marketing’s claims against Pohl for failing to pay Precision
Marketing for referrinog thousands of BP cases.
The illegalitly defense applies here. To sustain his claims, Pohl must establish
a right to thei property he claims was misappropriated. The first element of a
TUTSA claim violation is that the plaintiff owned a trade secret. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE §§ 134A.002(1), (3), (6), 134A.004(a). The statute defines “owner” to
mean “the person or entity in whom or in which rightful, legal, or equitable title to”
the trade secret. Id. at § § 134A.002(3-a). Because Pohl obtained the alleged trade
secret information illegally, through barratry and the unauthorized practice of law,
he necessarily does not have “rightful, legal, or equitable title” to the information.
Accordingly, Pohl’s illegal conduct necessarily negates his TUTSA claim.
Likewise, although common-law claims for conversion and conkspiracy are
preempted by TUTSA, Pohl would have to establish that hCe owned or had
possession of the property or entitlement to possession. See Freezia v. IS Storage
Venture, LLC, 474 S.W.3d 379, 386-87 (Tex. App.—Houstion [14th Dist.] 2015, no
pet.). Because Pohl’s claims rest on information acquired through illegal contracts,
Kassab can sustain an affirmative defense of illegality against Pohl.
Pohl provides a string cite of unrelated authority to improperly suggest that
illegality cannot be a defense in this casel. But none of the cases cited by Pohl are
relevant to the facts of this case or dMiscuss the interaction of the illegality defense
and the unlawful acts doctrine. See Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. White, 490 S.W.3d 468,
483 (Tex. 2016) (in unrelated ilandlord tenant case); Lewkowicz v. El Paso Apparel
Corp., 625 S.W.2d 301, 303 (Tex.1981) (holding that illegal actions concerning
leather production anod improper jailing in Mexico violate the public policy of Texas);
Niles v. Harris Colunty Fresh Water Supply Dist., 339 S.W.2d 562, 563 (Tex. Civ.
App.—Waco 19i60, writ ref’d) (affirming pleading of illegality was unnecessary over
water supply where the contract was illegal on its face); Reid v. Associated
Employers Lloyds, 164 S.W.2d 584, 585–586 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1942, writ
ref’d) (whether illegality must be affirmatively asserted as a defense to worker’s
compensation claim originating from unlading a keg of beer); Montgomery Ward &
Co. v. Lusk, 52 S.W.2d 1110 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1932, writ ref’d) (whether
contract requiring work for more than 9 hours a day violated a statute); Texas & P.
Coal Co. v. Lawson, 89 Tex. 394, 34 S.W. 919, 921 (1896) (concerning the legality of
a contract for the sale of liquor). k
Accordingly, this Court should deny Pohl’s traditional moCtion for summary
judgment on illegality as unsupported by law or fact.
D. Unlawful acts, criminal acts, and in pari dielicto.
1. Objection to Pohl’s lack of supporting evidence.
Kassab again objects to Pohl’s lack of evidence supporting his traditional
motion for summary judgment as to unlawful acts, criminal acts or in pari delicto.
Pohl asserts that “criminal acts,” “unlawlful acts,” and “in pari delicto” does not
apply because “(1) Pohl’s actions hMave been largely adjudicated and were not
‘admittedly’ criminal or unlawful; and (2) even if a fact issue remained regarding
the legality of Pohl’s acts, anyi wrongful act is not sufficiently tied to Pohl’s claims
here to give rise to a defense.”21 But Pohl’s barratry and unauthorized practice of
law in other states hoave not been disposed of on the merits. Instead, Pohl’s sole
evidence supportilng his motion is that “Pohl can certainly demonstrate the
elements of eaich of his claims without being required to prove any illegal act.”22 And
then he doesn’t—he provides no evidence whatsoever. Pohl is not even willing to
swear under oath that he did not commit barratry. Accordingly, Kassab objects to
Pohl’s lack of summary judgment evidence.
21 Mot., at 5.
22 Mot., at 6.
10
2. Kassab established that Pohl’s unlawful acts,
criminal acts and the doctrine of in pari delicto
preclude Pohl’s claims in prior summary judgment
briefing, which is incorporated herein.
In his Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed on August 29, 2022,
Kassab demonstrated that Pohl’s unlawful acts, criminal acts and thee in pari delicto
doctrines preclude Pohl’s claims as a matter of law. Kassab incorporates that
argument and evidence as if set forth verbatim herein. Kassatb also incorporates the
argument and evidence relating to the unlawful acts doctrine (including illegal or
criminal acts or in pari delicto) set forth on pages e9-14 of Nicholson’s Response to
Plaintiffs’ Traditional and No-Evidence Motionu for Summary Judgment, filed on
September 12, 2022.
In short, the Unlawful Acts ruale provides that “[i]f, at the time of the
plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff was engaged in an illegal act, and that act contributed
to the injury, he may not recoveer.” Andrew Shebay & Co., P.L.L.C. v. Bishop, 429
S.W.3d 644, 648–49 (Tex. fApp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). The
summary judgment evidence on file with the Court demonstrates that Pohl violated
Texas rules and laws governing lawyers by illegally soliciting clients, splitting fees
with a non-lawiyer, and failing to protect confidential client information. Pohl’s
former clienots then sued him for his barratry, and Pohl now seeks to recover fees
from defending his barratry.23 In sum, if Pohl had not been violating the law and
disciplinary rules by procuring the purported trade secret information through
23 In addition, Kassab attaches the expert reports from Lillian Hardwick (Exhibit 6), Benjamin
Cooper (Exhibit 7), and Joseph F. Cleveland, Jr. (Exhibit 8), which detail and explain why the
evidence in the summary judgment record establishes that Pohl committed barratry and other
unlawful acts which preclude his claims.
11
illegal and unethical means, he would not have been sued for barratry. The very
purpose of the doctrine is to make sure “that [Pohl] should not even entertain the
hope of indemnity for the offense committed.” Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Sneed,
63 Tex. Civ. App. 17, 21, 132 S.W. 386, 388 (1910, writ dism’d) (holdinkg that one of
two parties involved in the illegal sale of alcohol could not Csue the other for
misrepresentation).
Moreover, the First Court of Appeals has opined thait Pohl’s acts, if true—and
they are true—are illegal and preclude summary judgment. In the Cheatham case,
the court of appeals concluded that the same Walker deposition testimony as here
on the same allegations24 are “some evidence” that “Pohl and [his co-counsel]
coordinated the barratry scheme” and “thlat Pohl directly funded, and his wife and
her company further funded, the solMicitation of prospective clients” and that “Pohl
directed case runners to contact and solicit potential clients on his behalf, including
offering money from Pohl’s fiirm and his wife’s company.” Cheatham, 2022 WL
3720139, at *8. This evidence defeated the summary judgment filed by Pohl’s co-
counsel in the Cheathoam case, and is certainly enough to defeat it here.
Accordinglyl, this court can apply these doctrines to deny recovery to Pohl for
his illegal actis, even if the court holds that one or more defendants have also
committed an unlawful act. See Dover v. Baker, Brown, Sharman & Parker, 859
S.W.2d 441, 443, 450-51 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (denying
recovery to plaintiff who sued his attorney for malpractice claiming he signed a
24 Kassab attached Walker’s testimony as exhibits in his prior summary judgment motion, which is
incorporated by reference herein.
12
false affidavit on the advice of his attorney who knew the affidavit was unlawful).
This doctrine is not an “excuse” but a bar to Pohl bringing any claims that stem
from his own illegal and wrongful actions.
For these reasons, and those stated in the summary judgment bkriefing before
the Court, summary judgment on the affirmative defenses of unlawCful acts, criminal
acts and the in pari delicto should be denied.
RESPONSE TO NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY J DUiDGMENT
A. Pohl’s global and conclusory no-evidence challenge is
defective and should not be consideered.
The no-evidence summary judgment rule uexplicitly requires Pohl to “state the
elements as to which there is no evidence.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i) (emphasis
added). “The motion must be specific ina challenging the evidentiary support for an
element of a claim or defense; paragraph (i) does not authorize conclusory
motions or general no-evideence challenges to an opponent’s case.” Timpte
Indus. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 30f6, 310 (Tex. 2009) (emphasis added).
Pohl’s no-evidence challenge violates this rule. His entire no-evidence
argument is as follows:
In additioin to the affirmative defenses set forth above, Defendants
assert tihe following affirmative defenses, some of which were already
consiodered and rejected by this Court and the court of appeals during
consideration of the Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss under the Texas
Citizens Participation Act: 1) Statute of limitations; 2) Estoppel; 3)
Waiver; 4) Ratification; 5) Release; 6) Contribution; 7) Failure to
mitigate; 8) Lack of standing; 9) Accord and Satisfaction; 10).
Assumption of the Risk; 11) First Amendment; 12) Attorney Immunity;
13) Res Judicata; 14) Defect of Parties; 15) Abandonment; 16) Subject
of a Valid Contract. Pohl is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 166a(i) because after an adequate time for discovery, the
13
Defendants have no evidence to support any of these affirmative
defenses.
This conclusory no-evidence challenge is insufficient as a matter of law. See Dean v.
Aurora Bank, F.S.B., No. 01-15-00827-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13472, at *9 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 20, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (e“A no-evidence
summary judgment is insufficient as a matter of law if the motion is conclusory or
fails to challenge a specific essential element of a cause of acttion for which the non-
movant would have the burden of proof at trial.”).
When a no-evidence motion for summary ejudgment, as here, does not
challenge specific elements, it must be treatued as a traditional motion under
166a(c), which imposes the burden on the movant. Weaver v. Highlands Ins. Co., 4
S.W.3d 826, 829 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houstaon [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). As he provides
no facts or law in support of his argument, Pohl has not met his burden to prove
“there is no genuine issue as to aeny material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of la
wf.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Hillis v. McCall, 602 S.W.3d
436, 439-40 (Tex. 2020). With Pohl not having met his burden, “the burden does not
shift and [Kassab] need not respond or present any evidence.” Chavez v. Kansas
City S. Ry. Co., 5i20 S.W.3d 898, 900 (Tex. 2017). Accordingly, the Court should deny
Pohl’s purpoorted “no-evidence” motion.
B. The court should deny Pohl’s “no-evidence” motion
because Kassab can provide sufficient evidence and law
to support his affirmative defenses.
In his Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 8, 2021, Kassab
established, as a matter of law, the defenses of limitations, res judicata, and
14
attorney immunity. Kassab incorporates that motion and the evidence attached
thereto for all purposes herein. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 58. In the Traditional Motion for
Summary Judgment filed on August 29, 2022, Kassab established, as a matter of
law, the defenses of immunity pursuant to Texas Rule of Disciplinakry Procedure
17.09, the judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, limCitations, and that
Pohl’s claims are barred by illegal and unlawful acts. In that motion, Kassab also
demonstrated that the alleged trade secret information is niot owned by Pohl, but by
Precision Marketing or Pohl’s former clients, which demonstrates the lack of
standing and defect of parties affirmative defenses. Kassab also incorporates that
motion and the evidence attached thereto. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 58.
In addition, Kassab incorporates bly reference and adopts the response to
Pohl’s no-evidence motion for sumMmary judgment filed by the Nicholson on
September 12, 2022 as to those defenses which apply equally to Kassab, including
attorney immunity, limitationis, waiver, ratification and failure to mitigate. See TEX.
R. CIV. P. 58.
In addition, aos to the affirmative defense of standing or capacity and
ownership of the lpurportedly confidential information, the recent depositions of
Ladner and Wialker demonstrate that the information was Precision Marketing’s
work product and owned by Precision Marketing, not Pohl. Ladner testified that
“client information” was owned by Precision Marketing.25 Likewise, Walker testified
that his company owned the client list and documents containing information about
25 Exhibit 9, August 29, 2022 Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 44-45.
15
clients with potential cases.26 Walker agreed that the client information was
Precision Marketing’s “work product.”27 Thus, Pohl does not have standing or
capacity to sue Kassab, and there is a defect of parties to this litigation.
As to the defense of assumption of the risk, Pohl assumed thek risk that his
purported trade secret information would be stolen when he placCed it in the hands
of Walker, a known convicted felon. Specifically, Walker pled guilty to “one count of
federal program fraud and one count of conspiracy to icommit federal program
fraud” because he “fraudulently diverted and misused both federal grants and
money belonging to the State of Mississippi.”28 Pohl knew that Walker was a
convicted felon.29 Yet, Pohl trusted Walker with his purported trade secrets, without
requiring Walker to sign a confidentiality lagreement or non disclosure agreement.30
Pohl did not require these agreemeMnts because the alleged trade secrets are not
trade secrets at all and Pohl has no ownership in the documents that are the subject
of this lawsuit. Thus, Pohl aissumed the risk that Walker, a convicted felon who
“diverted and misused” property belonging to the others, would divert and misuse
Pohl’s purportedly coonfidential information, if in fact the alleged confidential
information were hlis.
The remiaining contract-related affirmative defenses of release, accord and
satisfaction, estoppel do not apply to Kassab. But to the extent that they do, Kassab
26 Exhibit 10, August 31, 2022 Deposition of Scott Walker, at 250-251.
27 Exhibit 10, August 31, 2022 Deposition of Scott Walker, at 251.
28 https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/jackson/press-releases/2014/ocean-springs-businessman-pleads-
guilty-to-federal-program-fraud. The Court is requested to take judicial notice of this official press
release from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
29 Exhibit 11, December 10, 2021 Deposition of Michael Pohl, at 104-105, 159-160.
30 Exhibit 11, December 10, 2021 Deposition of Michael Pohl, at 22-23, 159-161.
16
incorporates the argument and evidence set forth by Nicholson in her September 12,
2022 response to Pohl’s purported no-evidence challenge.
ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(g) allows a continuance of kthe summary
judgment hearing “to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositiCons to be taken or
discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.” T iEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(g).
To the extent the evidence is insufficient to raise a fact iissue on the affirmative
defense of illegality, Kassab objects and requests a continuance on the no-evidence
motion because Pohl has unreasonably resisted Kassab’s request for discovery
relating to that defense.
Pohl’s resistance prompted Kassab lto file his Motion to Compel Removal of
Pohl’s Objections and Properly RespMond to Discovery on August 25, 2022. Kassab
incorporates that motion as if set forth verbatim herein and asks the Court to take
judicial notice of it. See TEX. Ri. CIV. P. 58. As set forth in the motion to compel, Pohl
has refused to answer relevant and material discovery relating to his involvement
in the illegal barratroy scheme, which is discovery going to the heart of Kassab’s
illegality defense. lSpecifically, that discovery will aid in establishing that all of
Pohl’s purportiedly trade secret information was derived through illegal or unethical
conduct, such as barratry and the unauthorized practice of law.
Kassab used diligence in attempting to obtain this relevant discovery. Kassab
served the discovery requests beginning in May of 2021.31 Pohl amended his
31 See Motion to Compel, at Exhibit 1.
17
discovery responses through October 2021.32 Kassab attempted to seek additional
information and clarify or elaborate on certain discovery requests in later sets of
discovery, served September 2021 and December 2021.33 Pohl responded to that
discovery into January 2022.34 Over the course of the following moknths, Kassab
reviewed the discovery requests and then attempted to confer wiCth Pohl about the
discovery deficiencies. But Pohl refused to amend his discovery and produce
responsive information,35 thus necessitating the motion to ciompel.
Pohl cannot simultaneously withhold relevant discovery concerning his
illegal acts while, at the same time, move for summary judgment on illegality. See
Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Fuqua, 29 S.W.3d 140, 145 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th
Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (“A party should nlot be able to abuse the discovery process,
withhold key evidence from their oppMonents, and then use that lack of evidence to
win a judgment.”). Accordingly, a continuance of the summary judgment hearing
(and trial) should be granted iuntil after the motion to compel is heard and Pohl is
compelled to produce the improperly withheld information. See McInnis v. Mallia,
261 S.W.3d 197, 204 o(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (the fact that
movant “withheldl information in discovery” is a factor that weighed “in favor of”
permitting addiitional time for discovery); Tempay, Inc. v. TNT Concrete & Constr.,
Inc., 37 S.W.3d 517, 522-23 (Tex. App. – Austin 2001, pet. denied) (holding that the
trial court abused its discretion in determining that adequate time for discovery had
32 See Motion to Compel, at Exhibit 2 and 3.
33 See Motion to Compel, at Exhibit 4 and 5.
34 See Motion to Compel, at Exhibit 7.
35 See Motion to Compel, at Exhibit 9.
18
passed because movant successfully resisted nonmovant's attempts to obtain
discovery).
CONCLUSION & PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motikon for Partial
Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on AffirmatCive Defenses and
grant summary judgment against Plaintiffs, ordering that they take nothing on
their claims against Lance Christopher Kassab and The Kaissab Law Firm.
Respectfully submitted,
THE KASSAB LAW FIRM
__________________________
lDAVID ERIC KASSAB
a Texas State Bar No. 24071351
M david@kassab.law
 LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB
Texas State Bar No. 00794070
e lance@kassab.law
i NICHOLAS R. PIERCE
f Texas State Bar No. 24098263
nicholas@kassab.law
1214 Elgin Street
o Houston, Texas 77004
Telephone: 713-522-7400
l Facsimile: 713-522-7410
i E-Service: eserve@kassab.law
o ATTORNEYS FOR KASSAB DEFENDANTS
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this date, September 12, 2022, I electronically filed this
document with the Clerk of the Court using the eFile.TXCourts.gov electronic filing
system which will send notification of such filing to all parties or counsel of record.
___________________C____
DAVID ERIC KASSAtB 
20
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
David Kassab e
Bar No. 24071351 C
david@kassab.law t
Envelope ID: 68179652 r
Status as of 9/13/2022 8:03 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email sTimestampSubmitted Status
Solace Southwick ssouthwick@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Zandra EFoley zfoley@thompsoncoe.com r 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Andrew J. Sarne asarne@krcl.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.conm 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Kathryn Laflin KLaflin@KRCL.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrrar.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Larry Newsom lnewsom@fkrcl.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Jason M.Ciofalo jason@ciofalolaw.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Todd Taylor titaylor@jandflaw.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Harris Wells fhwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade y lawyerwade@hotmail.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre scott@favrepa.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez C andrea@kassab.law 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Lance Kassab  lance@kassab.law 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
David Kassab a david@kassab.law 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce c nicholas@kassab.law 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson f i 10607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo o 24003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Non-Party Witness Billy Shepherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Deidre Hicks GWS_GROUP@spcounsel.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
E. MarieJamison jamison@wrightclosebarger.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Jessica Z.Barger barger@wrightclosebarger.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT
Katie Budinsky kbudinsky@krcl.com 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM ERROR
D Kassab david@kassab.law 9/12/2022 6:16:47 PM SENT"
35,2022-09-12,RSP,Pohl,Pohl’s response to Kassab no-evid MSJ,"Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants — Pohl presents extensive evidence supporting all three claims (conspiracy, conversion, TUTSA) and rebuts defendants' challenges to ownership, protection, misappropriation, and damages elements","Response to no-evidence MSJs filed by Kassab and Nicholson defendants on August 29, 2022, in the third phase of litigation. Filed September 12, 2022 at 11:26 PM. Pohl incorporates by reference the discussion and evidence from his companion Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions filed the same day. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Addressed to the 189th Judicial District Court of Harris County.",MSJ-2,N/A,Phase 3,2022-09-12_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf,Deny the no-evidence motions for summary judgment filed by Kassab and Nicholson and allow all issues to be tried by a jury,"9/12/2022 11:26 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 68182775
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 9/12/2022 11:26 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, §
Plaintiffs, §
V. § k
§ e
SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l
LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c
LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r
THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s
NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, §
LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s
FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s
MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., §
Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
NO EVIDENCE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FILED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTSl AND THE NICHOLSON DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond
in opposition to the No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance
Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively
“Kassab”) and Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm
(collectively, “Nicholson”).
Given the overlapping issues in the multiple summary judgment motions before the Court,
Pohl also incorpcorates by reference the discussion and evidence included in his Response in
Opposition to the Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants and
the Nicholson Defendants that is filed on the same day as this Response.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Pohl represented various persons and entities in claims arising from motor vehicle
accidents and the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 Pohl engaged Precision
Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gathker and preserve
evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.2 l While working for
Pohl, Precision necessarily gained access to Pohl’s confidential and propcrietary information and
property, including trade secret materials.3 Scott Favre, individuaslly and/or through Scott M.
Favre PA, LLC (collectively “Favre”) is the managing member osf Precision.4 Favre took physical
copies of Pohl’s information, and possession of Pohl’s stolen computers and misappropriated
electronic data.5
In November 2016, Defendants Douglas Montague III, his law firm Montague Pittman &
Varnado, P.A. (collectively, “Montague”), Naicholson and Kassab arranged to purchase Pohl’s
stolen confidential information and property from Favre for $250,000, plus bonuses,6 taking
possession of at least some of the infoermation and property in December 2016.7 Kassab, Nicholson
and Montague highly valued Pofhl’s stolen and misappropriated confidential information and
property because, after purchyasing it, they intended to and did use it to contact and solicit Pohl’s
clients and prospectivCe clients.8 Defendants’ actions constitute conversion, violations of the
uniform trade secrets act (“TUTSA”), and conspiracy.
1 Sworn Declaration of Michael A. Pohl (the “Pohl Declaration”), ¶ 2, attached as Exhibit A.
2 Id. ¶ 9.
3 Id.
4 Id. ¶ 24.
5 Id. ¶¶ 24–25.
6 November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration (Exhibit A).
7 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration (Exhibit A).
8 Kassab has admitted using Pohl’s client files (while erroneously claiming that they belonged to Precision Marketing)
to contact Pohl’s clients and former clients to solicit them to file claims against Pohl. See Declaration of Lance
Christopher Kassab, attached as Exhibit 1 to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss, filed October 24, 2018, attached as Exhibit
Favre’s participation in the conspiracy to misappropriate and steal Pohl’s confidential
information and client communications violated the terms of a settlement agreement. That
confidential settlement agreement, executed in late April or early May 2017 (the “Settlement
Agreement”), resolved a lawsuit in federal court in Mississippi, styled No. 1:14-ckv-381-KS-JCG,
Scott Walker, et al. v. Jimmy Williamson, et al., In The United States Distrlict Court For The
Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division (the “Federal Court Ccase”).9
Defendants’ efforts to monetize Pohl’s trade secrets through sassertions of barratry claims
has been nearly a complete failure. Defendants brought barratsry claims on behalf of more than
400 plaintiffs,10 and the claims of all but four plaintiffs have been finally resolved in Pohl’s favor.11
As to those four remaining plaintiffs, the viability of their claims remains in dispute.12 Kassab
asserted multiple grievances with the Texas State Bar,13 all of which have been rejected, many
with the finding that “the Board has determinaed that the conduct you described in the grievance
does not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.”14 Notwithstanding this
lack of success, Defendants continuee to make allegations regarding Pohl and seek to relitigate
irrelevant questions regarding Pohfl’s alleged conduct. The Court should reject Defendants’ efforts
to justify their theft of Pohl’sy trade secrets by reasserting their failed claims of barratry.
9 Pohl Declaration ¶ 26i, Ex. A.
10 See Petitions in four cases, attached as Exhs. 28-30; 32 to the Nicholson’s Traditional Motion for Summary
Judgment, attachefd as Exhibit C.
11 See Cause No. 2017–38294, Dezzie Brumfield d/b/a LAD Enterprises, et al v. Michael A. Pohl, et al, in the 189th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas; No. 459,062-401, Alice Marie Gandy, et al v. Michael A. Pohl, et al.,
in the Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas; Cause No. 2017–37567, Mae Berry et al v. Michael A. Pohl, et
al, in the 113th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas; (showing the Brumfield, Gandy, and Berry cases are
final); see also Cheatham v. Pohl, No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 WL 3720139, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Aug. 30, 2022, no pet. h.) (showing that claims of four plaintiffs remain live). Pohl requests that the Court take judicial
notice of these publicly available facts.
12 Cheatham v. Pohl, No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 WL 3720139, at *15 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30,
2022, no pet. h.) (noting that “As to the barratry claim, we have concluded only that a fact issue continues to exist.
We take no position on the validity of the barratry claim against any of these parties.”).
13 See State Bar and Board of Disciplinary Appeals letters dismissing claims, attached as Exhibit D.
14 Id.
At core, Defendants’ challenges to the evidentiary basis for Pohl’s claims turn on two
fallacies that they have argued from the start. First, Defendants insist that Pohl did not own the
materials—including his own client agreements and client files—that they misappropriated. This
is clearly wrong and has been rejected by numerous courts in different jurisdictkions. See, e.g.,
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 1999-Ohio-260, 85 Ohio St. 3d 17l1, 182, 707 N.E.2d
853, 862 (discussing how law firm’s client list could constitute a trade seccret); Reeves v. Hanlon,
95 P.3d 513, 522 (Cal. 2004) (dealing with client data that constituteds trade secrets). Even giving
the argument that Pohl had no ownership interest in his client lsists, client agreements, and client
files the benefit of the doubt, at most the argument raises a disputed fact issue that cannot be
determined on a motion for summary judgment. Second, Defendants erroneously believe that
Pohl’s claims provide them an opportunity to reassert barratry claims that have failed in every
other forum. Those claims have no place herea and should be rejected.
II. ARGUMENT
Pohl has overwhelming prooef of each of the elements of his claims—far more than enough
to respond to Defendants’ no-evidfence challenges, as fully set forth below.
A. Pohl has ample evidyence of each element of conspiracy.
Pohl can readCily prove that Defendants, in combination with each other, sought to
accomplish the goals of conversion of Pohl’s property and misappropriation of Pohl’s trade secrets,
that they reachfefd a meeting of the minds, engaged in one or more unlawful overt acts, and that he
suffered dUamages as a result.
1. Pohl can prove that Defendants (a combination of two or more persons) acted in
combination to accomplish their goals of conversion and misappropriation,
reaching a meeting of the minds.
The evidentiary record of Defendants’ conspiracy is replete with emails establishing their
agreement to combine to acquire Pohl’s property and to use it for their own gaink in violation of
Pohl’s rights. Starting no later than September 2016, Kassab, Nicholson and lMontague engaged
in discussions with Scott Favre relating to a possible deal to bring barratcry claims against Pohl.15
The discussions between Montague and Kassab resulted in what Kasssab agreed could probably be
called a joint venture between the two of them.16 The purpose osf Montague’s joint venture was to
bring barratry claims against Pohl, a Texas lawyer, in Texas courts under the Texas barratry
statute.17
Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague also entered into a co-counsel agreement, the purpose
of which was to bring barratry claims in Texasa against Pohl.18 Kassab testified that this co-counsel
agreement was made in writing, but it has not yet been produced.19 However, Kassab has produced
contracts that he signed with Pohl’s feormer clients that show the co-counsel relationship between
Nicholson, Kassab, and Montagufe.20
Montague admits thyat he actually sent the information and materials that form the basis of
Pohl’s claims against thCem to Kassab in Texas.21 Montague states in his affidavit that he ‘informed
Kassab about this matter and sent him the PMG [Precision] documents owned by Favre that I
15 See Kassab Deposition at 27:4-13; 28:22-25, attached as Exhibit E; Montague Deposition at 72:4-15, attached as
Exhibit F; September 9, 2016 email from Montague, attached as Exhibit G (originally Ex. 2 to the Kassab Deposition);
see also Montague Deposition at 71:18-72:15 (stating that the email in Kassab Deposition Exhibit 2 “appears to be
something that I sent,” and not disputing its authenticity), Exhibit F.
16 See Kassab Deposition at 36:18-22, Ex. E.
17 See Montague Affidavit ¶ 7, Ex. H; Kassab Deposition at 53:13-15, Ex. E.
18 See Ex. F, Montague Deposition at 46:6-16; 49:1-15; Ex. I, Nicholson Deposition at 111:11-112:22.
19 See Ex. E, Kassab Deposition at 86:14-87:10.
20 See Ex. L.
21 See Montague Affidavit ¶ 7, Ex. H; Montague Deposition at 50:14-24, 53:19-54:6, Ex. F.
received.”22 Montague himself defines the “PMG [Precision] documents” in this context as
including “attorney-client contracts, communications, and lists of clients.”23 Nicholson herself
had an active role in attempting to ensure that the team received all of the client contracts.24
Montague took the lead in obtaining Pohl’s documents, including engagemkent agreements
between Pohl and his clients, which Montague helped facilitate the transfelr of to Kassab in
Texas:25 c
It is clear that Kassab and Montafgue were not satisfied with receiving Pohl’s engagement
agreements. They wanted to obtainc the names and the contact information for Pohl’s clients or
potential clients so that they coOuld solicit them to bring barratry claims against Mr. Pohl:26
22 Montague Affidavit ¶ 7, Ex. H (emphasis added).
23 Id. ¶ 6.
24 See Ex. M, Email dated November 22, 2016 from Nicholson to Kassab.
25 See Exhibit N, Dec. 7, 2016 email from Montague (originally used as Exhibit 11 to the Nicholson Deposition); see
also Exhibit O, Nov. 14, 2016 email from Montague (originally used as Exhibit 9 to the Nicholson Deposition)
(showing Montague instructed Favre to send documents to Kassab, a Texas lawyer); Exhibit F, Montague Deposition
at 89:1-10 (stating he recognized Nicholson Exhibit 9 and saying it was “what it appears to be, a request for [wiring]
instructions from Scott Favre.”); Exhibit E, Kassab Deposition at 138:5-9 (acknowledging that Nicholson Exhibit 11
appears to be an email from Montague to Kassab and other defendants and not disputing its authenticity).
26 See Exhibit P, Dec. 8, 2016 email from Montague (originally used as Exhibit 12 to the Nicholson Deposition); see
also Exhibit I, Nicholson Deposition at 162:5-164:15 (acknowledging that the email chain shown in Nicholson Exhibit
12 “was CC’ed to me” and not disputing its authenticity).
Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague were all active participants itn obtaining and processing
additional information to solicit Pohl’s clients or potential clients to bring additional claims in
Texas courts:27 e
When Montague realizeod that additional information was needed, Montague reached out to
Nicholson to obtain that additional converted and stolen information.28 Kassab was at all times
critical to the conspiracy, as he and his firm were the experts on claims of barratry in Texas.
27 See Exhibit Q, Dec. 8, 2016 email from Montague (originally used as Exhibit 13 to the Nicholson Deposition); see
also Exhibit F, Montague Deposition at 103:5-14 (acknowledging the email chain shown in Nicholson Exhibit 13
showed an email that appeared to be sent by Montague and not disputing its authenticity).
28 See Exhibit R, Feb. 15, 2017 email from Montague (originally used as Exhibit 14 to the Nicholson Deposition); see
also Exhibit F, Montague Deposition at 116:1-8 (acknowledging the email chain shown in Nicholson Exhibit 14 and
not disputing its authenticity).
Montague recognized Kassab’s experience and knowledge of civil barratry claims,29 and, as
Kassab points out on his website, a civil claim for barratry is “unique to Texas.”30
2. Pohl can prove that Defendants engaged in one or more overt unlawful acts in
furtherance of their conspiracy.
Defendants engaged in overt acts constituting both conversion and miseappropriation, and
Pohl’s evidence of each of those acts is set forth in the sections addressing them below.
3. Pohl can prove that he suffered damages as a result. r
Pohl has testified, as has his expert witnesses, about the eDxtensive damages arising from
the underlying torts—Defendants’ theft of trade secrets and csonversion.31 Those damages arose
directly from the actions of Defendants in converting anrd misappropriating Pohl’s trade secrets
and then attempting to monetize those secrets by contacting Pohl’s clients and former clients and
fomenting litigation against him. Pohl was alsol damaged by the loss of his property, and he is
entitled to recover the market value ofM the converted and misappropriated property and
information. There are multiple sources of evidence regarding the value of some or all of the
converted or misappropriated infor c mation.32 As these damages are derivative of the damages
suffered for the underlying torts, the evidence cited here supports damages in relation to those
torts, and Pohl incorporates his discussion and evidence in relation to those claims here. See infra
Parts II(B)(4) & II(C)(3).
29 See Exhibit G, Ex. 2 to the Kassab Deposition; Exhibit H, Montague Affidavit ¶ 7; Exhibit F, Montague Deposition
at 44:14-19.
30 See Barratry and Solicitation, Kassab Law Firm, https://texaslegalmalpractice.com/legal-malpractice/barratry-and-
solicitation/ (last visited Aug 7, 2022); see also Exhibit F, Montague Deposition at 49:9-18 (confirming that Montague
is not aware of any state, other than Texas, in which a civil claim for barratry exists).
31 See Report of John Zavitsanos on Fees, attached as Exhibit S; Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 27-28, Ex. A.
32 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 328:10-16 (testifying about how he had heard Pohl’s client list was worth $6
million), attached as Exhibit V; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 314:10–315:18, 343:7-344:17 (recalling that he was
told that the boxes containing Pohl’s information were worth $6 million), attached as Exhibit W; Pohl Declaration ¶
28, Ex. A; see also 2016.11.10 Agreement Between Kassab, Montague, and Favre, attached as Exhibit EE; Montague
Deposition, at 79:11-82:21, Exhibit F (indicating that Kassab and Montague paid $250,000, plus agreed to pay
additional incentives, for access to Pohl’s information).
B. Pohl has ample evidence of each element of conversion
Conversion is the “unauthorized and wrongful assumption and exercise of dominion and
control over the personal property of another, to the exclusion of or inconsistent with the owner's
rights.” Waisath v. Lack's Stores, Inc., 474 S.W.2d 444, 447 (Tex. 1971). The elekments are: “(1)
the plaintiff owned, had legal possession of, or was entitled to possession of thle property; (2) the
defendant assumed and exercised dominion and control over the propcerty in an unlawful and
unauthorized manner, to the exclusion of and inconsistent with the splaintiff's rights; and (3) the
defendant refused the plaintiff’s demand for return of the propserty.” Akin v. Santa Clara Land
Co., Ltd., 34 S.W.3d 334, 344 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied); see also Hunt v.
Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 131 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.).
1. Pohl’s evidence that he owned, had legal possession of, or was entitled to
possession of the property is more thaln sufficient.
Pohl testified that he owns his compMuters, property, attorney-client contracts, forms created
for his practice, data, photographs, client files, attorney work product and financial information
that was stolen from his office.33 It c is not disputed that the materials at issue included Pohl’s client
lists, client files, and thousands of contracts between Pohl and his clients.34 In addition to Pohl’s
own testimony, the persons to whom Defendants now trace their purported ownership have
testified that the client contracts and/or client lists belong to Pohl.35 In fact, Pohl’s client lists were
valuable to Defencdants because they belonged to Pohl, and Defendants believed they had value as
a means for convincing Pohl’s clients and former clients to bring barratry claims against Pohl.36
33 See Deposition of Michael A. Pohl, at 5:22-7:23, attached as Exhibit T.
34 See Deposition of Scott M. Favre, at 119:2-13, Exhibit U; Deposition of Lance Kassab, at 59:5-60:15, Exhibit E;
Affidavit of Douglas Montague III ¶¶ 6, 7, Exhibit H.
35 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-21, 316:5-319:14, 327:14-329:23, attached as Exhibit V; Deposition of
Kirk Ladner, at 126:17–128:20, 161:19–163:20, 340:22–342:17, 350:1–351:21, 356:23–358:10, attached as Exhibit
W; Deposition of Steve Seymour, at 193:13-195:9, attached as Exhibit X.
36 See, e.g., Affidavit of Douglas Montague III ¶¶ 6-8, Ex. H.
The argument that Pohl did not own his own client list ignores completely the undisputed
fact that the list was a list of Pohl’s clients. Defendants’ insistence that Pohl did not own these
materials is simply an argument; their factual challenges to Pohl’s ownership are irrelevant and
should not be considered in disposing of the no-evidence motions for summary kjudgment. See
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidencel motion requires a
court to disregard all contrary evidence and inferences).37 But even cif it were relevant, the
immense amount of testimony declaring that Pohl does own his clienst list and contracts provides
far more than a scintilla of evidence in support of Pohl’s ownersship.38
2. Pohl’s evidence that Defendants assumed and exercised dominion and control over
the property in an unlawful and unauthorizedr manner, to the exclusion of and
inconsistent with Pohl’s rights is more than sufficient.
There is no dispute that Defendants obtained Pohl’s attorney-client contracts,
communications and client lists, nor is there aany dispute that they did so without obtaining Pohl’s
permission.39 Defendants expected to and did use that material and information to file suits and
grievances against Pohl.40 There is,e in fact, no evidence that Defendant’s actions were lawful,
authorized or consistent with Pohfl’s rights or frankly the right of Pohl’s clients.
3. Pohl’s evidence tyhat Defendants refused his demand for return of the property, if
necessary, is more than sufficient.
As a legal matter, Pohl contends that there was no requirement for Pohl to lodge a formal
demand for the creturn of his property, as Defendants wrongfully obtained possession of the
37 Furthermore, defendants’ argument ignores that a claim for conversion requires that a plaintiff have a right to
possession, not necessarily ownership, of the alleged converted property. See French v. Moore, 169 S.W.3d 1, 13
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Even if defendants were correct that Pohl did not have legal title to
some of the converted information, the evidence Pohl cites to demonstrate his ownership would at the very least raise
a fact question about his superior right of possession against all third parties, such as against defendants.
38 See supra notes 33 & 35.
39 See Deposition of Tina Nicholson, at 70:7-15, attached as Exhibit I; Kassab Deposition, at 60:25-62:6, Exhibit E;
Pohl Declaration filed in response to TCPA Motion ¶ 8, Exhibit Y.
40 Kassab Deposition, at 70:4-20, Exhibit E.
10
converted property and their actions were a clear repudiation of Pohl’s rights to his property.41 As
a factual matter, Pohl and his counsel did repeatedly demand the return of Pohl’s property.42 To
the extent that there is any doubt that defendants wrongfully obtained possession of the materials,
this issue is a fact question.43 However, given that the individuals who tookk the materials
acknowledge that they believed it belonged to Pohl44 and did not have permislsion to take it, that
should remove any doubt. Additionally, there is enough evidence that Decfendants’ actions were a
repudiation of Pohl’s rights, as they used his converted materials to ssolicit clients to sue him and
disregarded his instructions to Precision to maintain the confidesntiality of the materials.45
Even if demand and refusal were necessary elements of Pohl’s claim, there is ample
evidence that Pohl sought the return of his files and other property from Precision, Nicholson, and
Kassab as well as from other defendants. Pohl’s counsel from another lawsuit made multiple
demands to Nicholson (then acting as the lawyaer for both Favre and Precision) for the return of his
property.46 Both Nicholson and Kassab testified in their depositions that they had entered a joint
venture to pursue barratry claims agaienst Pohl, and it is not disputed that, together with Montague,
they acted together.47 It is likewfise not disputed that Pohl struggled to obtain the return of his
41 See Guillory v. Dietrich, 598 S.W.3d 284, 294 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet. denied) (“demand and refusal are not
required if the defendanat wlrongfully acquired possession”); French v. Moore, 169 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2004, no peit.) (“A plaintiff is required to demand return of the property if the defendant legally obtained
possession.”); El Paso Prod. Co. v. Valence Operating Co., 112 S.W.3d 616, 625 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2003, pet. denied)f (stating that a demand for return of the property is not required if the “possessor’s acts manifest a
clear repudiation of the plaintiff’s rights”).
42 See Collection of Letters from Billy Shepherd, attached as Exhibit Z; see also Exhibit 12 to the Nicholson Motion.
43 See supra notes 39-40.
44 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-21, 316:5-319:14, 327:14-329:23, attached as Exhibit V; Deposition of
Kirk Ladner, at 126:17–128:20, 161:19–163:20, 340:22–342:17, 350:1–351:21, 356:23–358:10, attached as Exhibit
W; Deposition of Steve Seymour, at 193:13-195:9, attached as Exhibit X.
45 See Ex. B, Declaration of Lance Christopher Kassab, attached as Exhibit 1 to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss, filed
October 24, 2018; Ex. E, Kassab Deposition 130:3-21 (admitting that Kassab attached Pohl’s fee agreements with
Pohl’s clients that he obtained from Precision to solicitation letters that Kassab sent to Pohl’s clients).
46 See Collection of Letters from Billy Shepherd, attached as Exhibit Z.
47 Nicholson Deposition, at 109:5-15, Ex, I; Kassab Deposition, at 37:2-7, Exhibit E; Exhibit AA (originally used as
Exhibit 8 to Kassab Deposition).
11
property, including by seeking sanctions from a federal court for failure to return everything to
him.48 Nicholson admits in her traditional motion for summary judgment that: “As part of the
settlement, the Parties entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement, and in the agreement Pohl
requested the return of the same trade secrets alleged here.” See Nicholson’s Amenkded Traditional
Motion for Summary Judgment, at 21, filed August 29, 2022. The evidence of dlemand and refusal
to return Pohl’s property is clear. c
4. Pohl’s evidence of damages resulting from the conversiosn of his property is more
than sufficient. D
Nicholson challenges Pohl’s evidence of damages asrising from the conversion of his
property. In so doing, she ignores established Texas law trhat provides:
An owner is competent to testify regarding the value of converted property and, in
the absence of controverting evidence, such testimony will sustain a verdict.
Wiese v. Pro Am Services, Inc., 317 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no
pet.) (citing Burns v. Rochon, 190 S.W.3d 263, 270–71 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no
pet.); see also Burlington N. R.R. ve. Gen. Projection Sys., No. 05–97–00425–CV, 2000 WL
1100874, at *8 (Tex. App.—Dalflas Aug. 8, 2000, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (not designated for
publication) (concluding tesytimony by plaintiff’s CFO concerning converted property’s rental
value was legally and Cfactually sufficient to support an award for loss of use damages). Pohl is
entirely competent ato testify regarding the value of the converted property.49
In additifon, there are multiple additional sources of evidence of the value of the converted
materialsU, including the amount Favre paid to acquire Precision Marketing and files in its
possession,50 Favre’s affidavit testimony regarding the value of the materials,51 and Defendants’
48 See Transcript of hearing on October 25, 2017, attached as Exhibit BB; Pohl Declaration ¶ 26, Ex. A.
49 Pohl Declaration ¶ 27, Ex. A.
50 The amount was $1.5 million; see Exhibit CC; see also Exhibit 10 to the Nicholson Motion.
51 See Favre Affidavit, Ex. DD.
12
payment of $250,000 plus bonuses for access to the materials.52 Finally, there is evidence that
Pohl suffered actual damages in the form of attorneys’ fees and expenses that he incurred
defending litigation that arose due to Defendants’ conversion of his property.53
C. Pohl has ample evidence of each element of TUTSA. k
Pohl has evidence to support each of the elements of his TUTSA claiml, as he can prove:
(1) that he owned trade secrets; (2) that Defendants knowingly acquired thcem by improper means,
and (3) that the misappropriation caused Pohl damages. See TEX. sCIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
134A.002. Texas law provides that a trade secret s 
may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is
used in one’s business, and which gives him an oprportunity to obtain an advantage
over competitors who do not know or use it. It may be a formula for a chemical
compound, a process of manufacturing, treating or preserving materials, a pattern
for a machine or other device, or a list of customers.
Trilogy Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 143 S.W.3d 452, 463 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004,
pet. denied). 
Mr. Pohl has sworn that he eowns the materials and that the materials at issue have
independent economic value fromf not being generally known to or ascertainable through proper
means by another person wyho can obtain economic value from them.54 He has sworn that he
protected the trade secrCet information by strictly limiting access and maintaining them under lock
and key and by ensauring that those who had access to the information understood its confidential
nature.55 This fwas confirmed by the Precision witnesses.56 He has sworn that he has suffered
52 See 2016.11.10 Agreement Between Kassab, Montague, and Favre, attached as Exhibit EE; Montague Deposition,
at 79:11-82:21, Ex. F.
53 Pohl Declaration ¶ 28, Ex. A.
54 Pohl Declaration ¶ 27, Ex. A.
55 Id. ¶¶ 14-15.
56 See, e.g., Deposition of Michael A. Pohl, attached as Exhibit T, at 5:22-7:23; Deposition of Scott M. Favre at 119:2-
13, Exhibit U; Deposition of Lance Kassab at 59:5-60:15, Exhibit E; Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-21, 316:5-
319:14, 327:14-329:23, Exhibit V; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 126:17–128:20, 161:19–163:20, 340:22–342:17,
350:1–351:21, 356:23–358:10, Exhibit W; Deposition of Steve Seymour, at 193:13-195:9, Exhibit X.
13
injury as a result of Defendants’ misappropriation of those trade secrets.57 This evidence is
sufficient to overcome the challenges of the no-evidence motions. As set forth in greater detail
below, Pohl has substantial evidence of each element of his claims under TUTSA.
1. Pohl’s evidence that he owned the trade secrets is sufficient. k
TUTSA provides a statutory definition of the term “owner.” l
“Owner” means, with respect to a trade secret, the person or enticty in whom or in which
rightful, legal, or equitable title to, or the right to enforce rigrhts in, the trade secret is
reposed. s
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(3-a). Once agasin, Defendants challenge Pohl’s
evidence demonstrating his ownership of the materials, claiming both that he did not own it and
that his acquisition of the trade secrets was wrongful. Pohl’s evidence of ownership, as fully set
forth above is substantial;58 it is Defendants’ position that Pohl did not own the materials that is
unsupported by any evidence. Defendants’ caontention that Pohl has no legal or equitable title to
his attorney-client agreements, his confidential client lists, and his attorney work product because
he obtained those materials by impropeer means is just another reiteration of their failed arguments
regarding barratry. Defendants’ cfontention that Pohl obtained the client lists through illegal action
has been fought and lost, andy their efforts to reurge every failed argument should be rejected.
2. Pohl’s evideCnce that he protected the trade secrets is sufficient.
Mr. Pohl has sworn that he strictly limited access to the trade secrets, and he ensured that
those who had fafccess to that information fully understood as part of their professional obligations
the confiUdential character of that information. Defendants apparently believe that because they
57 Pohl Declaration ¶ 28, Ex. A.
58 See, e.g., Deposition of Michael A. Pohl, attached as Exhibit T, at 5:22-7:23; Deposition of Scott M. Favre at 119:2-
13, Exhibit U; Deposition of Lance Kassab at 59:5-60:15, Exhibit E; Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-21, 316:5-
319:14, 327:14-329:23, Exhibit V; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 126:17–128:20, 161:19–163:20, 340:22–342:17,
350:1–351:21, 356:23–358:10, Exhibit W; Deposition of Steve Seymour, at 193:13-195:9, Exhibit X.
14
were able to unlawfully obtain the information, Pohl cannot demonstrate that he protected that
information. If that argument succeeded, then in every claim of misappropriation, the
misappropriation itself would prove a failure to protect the information.
Defendants suggest that Pohl failed to protect the information at issue becaukse Pohl did not
include a specific confidentiality provision in his contract with Precision. Bult whether Pohl did
or did not take one of many potential steps to protect trade secrets does ncot support a no-evidence
motion for summary judgment. Pohl has more than a scintilla osf evidence of the statutory
requirement—that he take “reasonable measures under tshe circumstances” to preserve
confidentiality. Pohl testified that “numerous times throughout the relationship,” he emphasized
to Precision and its employees the importance of confidentiality.59 The testimony of individuals
associated with Precision shows that not only were they aware of the confidential nature of the
information, but they took reasonable steps ato protect the confidentiality of that information.60
These steps include (and are corroborated by Precision representatives):
• Pohl informed Preciseion and all of the staff of the confidential and privileged
nature of the inforfmation and instructed them to treat them accordingly.61
• Pohl maintai y ned his office at the top of Hancock Bank – “the most secure location
on the cCoast.”62
• The building had 24 hour/round the clock security.63
59 Deposition of Michael Pohl at 23:5-21, Exhibit T.
60 Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, 321:5-324:7, Exhibit V; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 355:18–
358:10, 372:7–374:24, 377:4–23, 501:3–502:18, Exhibit W; Deposition of Steve Seymour, at 96:16-24, 223:1-20,
Exhibit X.
61 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, Exhibit V; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 372:7–374:24, Exhibit
62 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, Exhibit V; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 372:7–374:24, Exhibit
63 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, Exhibit W.
15
• The elevators were coded such that one could only get to one’s own floors.64
• There were security cameras at every floor.65
• The documents and computers were kept under “lock and seal.”66
• The engagement agreements were clearly labeled to identify the k m as contracts
between lawyers and clients.67 C l
Defendants’ focus on the absence of a written confidentiality provision is a distraction from the
evidence (which defeats a no evidence summary judgment) of Pohl’s efforts to protect
confidentiality. s
2. Pohl’s evidence that Defendants knowingly mgisappropriated the trade secrets is
sufficient. r
The statutory definition of “misappropriation” includes “acquisition” of a trade secret by
improper means and “use” of a trade secret by a iperson if the person knows or has reason to know
that the person’s knowledge of the trade secret was derived from or through a person who used
improper means to acquire the trade sec
ret. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(3). Kassab
and Nicholson misappropriated Poihl’s trade secrets by participating in a scheme to acquire stolen
trade secrets and they then “used” Pohl’s trade secrets by contacting Pohl’s clients to solicit their
participation in barratry souits.
Through theirl training and experience as lawyers, Kassab and Nicholson knew or should
have known that it was improper to obtain an attorneys’ client contracts and list from a third party
without thant lawyer’s or the client’s authorization.68 Furthermore, the agreement that Kassab
(Nicholson’s co-counsel) signed to obtain Pohl’s trade secrets contains an indemnity provision for
64 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 322:9-23, Exhibit V.
65 Id.
66 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, Exhibit V.
67 Pohl Declaration ¶ 15, Ex. A.
68 See Pohl Deposition at 115:5-116:1, Exhibit T.
16
Favre in which Kassab agreed to indemnify and hold harmless Favre in defending claims relating
to and/or arising from the disclosure of client information where such claims are asserted by Pohl
and certain others.69 Nicholson also was responsible for sending threatening letters to get Walker
and others to turn over Pohl’s information to Nicholson, Precision, and Favre.70 k
In addition, certain Defendants’ “uses” of the trade secrets occurred aftelr May 1, 2017, the
date of the Settlement Agreement that Nicholson discusses in her traditiocnal motion for summary
judgment.71 There can be no doubt that by the time Kassab and Nicholsson used Pohl’s trade secrets
to contact and solicit Pohl’s clients and former clients, they knsew that the materials belonged to
Pohl and their use violated his rights of ownership.
3. Pohl’s evidence that he incurred actual damages is sufficient.
Pohl has testified relating to his extensive damages arising from Defendants’ theft of trade
secrets.72 Those damages arose directly from athe actions of Defendants in misappropriating Pohl’s
trade secrets and attempting to monetize those secrets by contacting Pohl’s clients and former
clients and fomenting litigation againest him. Additionally, Pohl has provided evidence of damages
in the form of the market value fof his trade secrets that constitute unjust enrichment/reasonable
royalty damages for Defendaynts’ theft of those trade secrets.73
69 2016.11.10 Agreement Between Kassab, Montague, and Favre, Ex. EE.
70 See Letters from Nicholson (originally used as Exhibits 70 and 71 in the Walker Deposition), attached as Exhibit
FF; Deposition of Scott Walker, at 391, 394:11-395:9 (discussing Exhibits 70 and 71 and showing that they were
produced by Nicholson’s attorney in the deposition), Ex. V.
71 See Petitions in four cases, attached as Exhs. 28-30; 32 to the Nicholson’s Traditional Motion for Summary
Judgment, each filed after May 1, 2017, Exhibit C. These filings were in direct violation of the Settlement Agreement,
which requires that parties and their affiliates (defined to include their attorneys) will not file or cause to be filed any
complaint, claim or legal action against Pohl and others.
71 Cf. Nicholson’s Amended Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, at 21, filed August 29, 2022
72 See Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 27-28, Ex. A.
73 See id. ¶ 27.
17
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl
respectfully request that the No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment filedk by Kassab and
Nicholson be in all respects denied and that the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Peltition be tried by a
jury. c
Dated: September 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted,s
REYNOLDS FRIZZEsLL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean rC. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel.l 713.485.7200
Faax 713.485.7250
Mjfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com
oAttorney for Plaintiffs Michael Pohl
e and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the TCexas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 12th day of September, 2022.
c /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
f Jean C. Frizzell
18
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell e
Bar No. 7484650 C
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com t
Envelope ID: 68182775 r
Status as of 9/13/2022 8:05 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email sTimestampSubmitted Status
Solace Southwick ssouthwick@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Zandra EFoley zfoley@thompsoncoe.com r 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Andrew J. Sarne asarne@krcl.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.conm 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Kathryn Laflin KLaflin@KRCL.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrrar.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Larry Newsom lnewsom@fkrcl.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Jason M.Ciofalo jason@ciofalolaw.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Todd Taylor titaylor@jandflaw.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Harris Wells fhwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade y lawyerwade@hotmail.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre scott@favrepa.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez C andrea@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Lance Kassab  lance@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
David Kassab a david@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce c nicholas@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson f i 10607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo o 24003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Non-Party Witness Billy Shepherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Deidre Hicks GWS_GROUP@spcounsel.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
E. MarieJamison jamison@wrightclosebarger.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Jessica Z.Barger barger@wrightclosebarger.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT
Katie Budinsky kbudinsky@krcl.com 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM ERROR
D Kassab david@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:26:05 PM SENT"
36,2022-09-12,RSP,Pohl,Pohl’s response to Kassab trad MSJ,"Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants — comprehensive 38-page response opposing limitations, unlawful acts doctrine, attorney immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, release, TUTSA protection, ownership, and damages defenses","Response to traditional MSJs filed by Kassab (Aug. 29, 2022) and Nicholson (Amended, Aug. 29, 2022), four years into litigation. Filed September 12, 2022 at 11:55 PM. Incorporates arguments and evidence from companion no-evidence MSJ response filed same day. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Notes Court previously denied Kassab's first MSJ (limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity) on August 3, 2021.",MSJ-2,N/A,Phase 3,2022-09-12_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Trad-MSJ_FILED.pdf,Deny the traditional motions for summary judgment filed by Kassab and Nicholson in all respects,"9/12/2022 11:55 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 68182991
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 9/12/2022 11:55 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, §
Plaintiffs, §
V. § k
§ e
SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l
LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c
LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r
THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s
NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, §
LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s
FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s
MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., §
Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
TRADITIONAL MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FILED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTSl AND THE NICHOLSON DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond
in opposition to the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance
Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively
“Kassab”) and the Amended Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina Nicholson
and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively, “Nicholson,” and
together with Kassab, the “Moving Defendants”).
c I. INTRODUCTION
On June 8, 2021, Kassab moved for traditional summary judgment on the grounds of
limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity. By order dated August 3, 2021, the Court denied
Kassab’s motion. Although nothing has changed relative to the facts relating to the defenses of
limitations and attorney immunity, Kassab reargues those issues to the Court. Nicholson likewise
asserts limitations and immunity defenses. For the same reasons the Court rejected those defenses
in Kassab’s original motions, the Court should reject those defenses again here.
The Moving Defendants’ assertion of an “illegal acts” defense fails as both a matter of fact
and a matter of law. Both Nicholson and Kassab expend countless breathless pakges and submit
dozens of exhibits in an effort to prove what they have been unable to demolnstrate in multiple
prior lawsuits and in Texas State Bar Grievances. The claim that Pohl engcaged in acts that violated
the Texas Rules governing lawyers has been examined and rejected bsy the State Bar of Texas, and
the enormous evidentiary record does not alter that determinatiosn. Instead, it merely exposes once
again the Moving Defendants’ overall strategy of muddying the record with extraneous allegations
against Pohl, in spite of the Court’s dismissal of all the counterclaims previously asserted against
him.
The “illegal acts” defense does noat apply because (1) it is preempted by Texas’s
proportionate responsibility statute; (2) Pohl’s actions have been adjudicated and were not
“admittedly” criminal or unlawful; aned (3) even if a fact issue remained regarding the legality of
Pohl’s acts, any wrongful act is fnot sufficiently tied to and is not a proximate cause of Pohl’s
claims here to give rise to a dyefense.
Nicholson contCends that any torts they committed against Pohl were released as a result of
the a confidential settlement agreement, executed in late April and early May 2017 (the
“Settlement Agf freement”), that resolved a lawsuit in federal court in Mississippi, styled No. 1:14-
cv-381-KUS-JCG, Scott Walker, et al. v. Jimmy Williamson, et al., In The United States District
Court For The Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division (the “Federal Court Case”), in
which Tina Nicholson represented Precision, then owned by Favre. Given that Nicholson has
flagrantly and repeatedly violated obligations arising from that Settlement Agreement, including
by fomenting litigation against Pohl and by failing to return all originals and all copies of materials
stolen from Pohl, it is surprising that Nicholson would invoke that agreement here. In any event,
the release on which Nicholson relies does not extend to the acts committed here.
The Moving Defendants also contend that various forms of immunity proktect them from
this suit, but their arguments fail as a matter of law. The attorney immunityl doctrine does not
protect lawyers from claims of conversion and theft of trade secrets comcmitted when they were
not representing any client. Similarly, the “judicial proceedings privislege” does not apply to those
torts in that context. s 
The final two defenses that the Moving Defendants assert in their traditional motions for
summary judgment are Pohl’s alleged failure to protect his trade secrets by requiring a
confidentiality agreement, and an argument that the damages Pohl seeks are not available as
recompense for misappropriation of trade secarets and conversion. Both defenses fail as a matter
of law and as a matter of fact. 
I. FeACTUAL BACKGROUND1
Pohl represented variousf persons and entities in claims arising from motor vehicle
accidents and the British Peytroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill (“BP Matter”).2 Pohl engaged
Precision Marketing GCroup, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gather and
preserve evidence, a and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.3 While
working for Pfofhl, Precision naturally gained access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietary
informatiUon and property, including trade secret materials.4 Scott Favre, individually and/or
1 Pohl incorporates by reference both the arguments and evidence contained in his Response to the No-Evidence
Motions for Summary Judgment that is filed on the same day as this Response.
2 Sworn Declaration of Michael A. Pohl (the “Pohl Declaration”) ¶ 2, attached as Exhibit A.
3 Id. ¶ 9.
4 Id.
through Scott M. Favre PA, LLC (collectively “Favre”) is the managing member of Precision.5
Favre took physical copies of Pohl’s information, and took possession of Pohl’s stolen computers
and misappropriated electronic data.6
In November 2016, facilitated by Nicholson, Kassab and Douglas Mokntague III and
Montague, Pittman & Varanado, P.A. purchased Pohl’s stolen confidentiall information and
property from Favre for a whopping $250,000, plus bonuses,7 taking poscsession of at least some
of the information and property in December 2016.8 The Moving Defsendants highly valued Pohl’s
stolen and misappropriated confidential information and propertys because, after purchasing it, they
intended to and did contact and solicit Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.9 These actions
constitute conversion, violations of the uniform trade secrets act (“TUTSA”), and conspiracy. Pohl
timely brought this lawsuit alleging those torts on August 28, 2018.10
The Barraatry Allegations
Although any attempt to relitigate the failed barratry allegations should not be permitted
(and will be the subject of appropriaete motions in limine and evidentiary objections), and Pohl
hesitates to give the allegations unfnecessary attention, Pohl will address those claims briefly below
out of an abundance of cautiyon and to not leave the inaccurate, and often purposefully misleading,
allegations unrebuttedC. While the problems and misstatements contained in Kassab’s and
5 Id. ¶ 24.
6 Id. ¶¶ 24–25.
7 November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration (Exhibit A).
8 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration (Exhibit A).
9 The defendants have admitted using Pohl’s client files (while erroneously claiming that they belonged to Precision
Marketing) to contact Pohl’s clients and former clients to solicit them to file claims against Pohl. See Declaration of
Lance Christopher Kassab, attached as Exhibit 1 to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss, filed October 24, 2018, Exhibit B;
Kassab Deposition 130:3-21 (admitting that Kassab attached Pohl’s fee agreements with Pohl’s clients that he obtained
from Precision to solicitation letters that Kassab sent to Pohl’s clients), Exhibit C.
10 See generally Pohl’s Original Petition, filed August 28, 2018.
Nicholson’s motions could result in an 80-page response, Pohl will address a few key issues and
rely upon his declaration to further rebut the allegations.
Precision, before the sale to the Favre parties, was owned and run by Kirk Ladner, Steve
Seymour, and Scott Walker.11 At the time that Pohl retained Precision, Preckision made the
following representations to Pohl: l
• That Precision had considerable experience in working wcith many law firms and
could provide marketing and public relations services, gather and preserve
evidence and act as a liaison with Pohl’s
clientss;12
• That Precision operated under the guidancge of experienced Mississippi attorneys
to ensure the propriety of their marketBing activities;13
• That Precision would organize anyd host festivals, town hall meetings and other
gatherings to appropriately edaucate the public as part of their marketing efforts;14
• That Precision would traifn  and supervise the Precision staff so as to ensure optimal
results and complian e ce with the rules governing their marketing activities.15
Mr. Pohl and Mr. WilOliafmson relied on these representations in moving forward with
Precision’s principals and entered into services agreements that provided for an hourly rate for
services that was cappCed at a percentage of Pohl’s fees.16 Precision worked out of an office
11 Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 5-8, 24, Exhibit A.
12 Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 5, 9, 25.
13 Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 10, 20.
The evidence still supports this representation. As Walker testified less than two weeks ago: “We ran [the
contracts between Precision and Pohl] past multiple law firms and they all approved those.” Deposition of Scott
Walker, at 209:25-211:9, attached as Exhibit D.
14 Pohl Declaration ¶ 21.
15 Pohl Declaration ¶ 21.
16 Pohl Declaration ¶ 18; see also Exhibit 2 to the Kassab Motion (attaching a later example of such an agreement).
supplied by Pohl and Precision’s owners and staff were Pohl’s agents facilitating the rendition of
Pohl’s and Williamson’s legal service.17
Precision did not live up to expectations. Precision committed the following misconduct:
• Referred certain clients to other lawyers when they were supposed kto be providing
services full time to Pohl and Williamson; C l
• Fabricated expenses to overcharge Pohl for fraudulent expcense reimbursements;
• Systematically overcharged Pohl in violation of the services agreements;
• Failed to keep time records as both required sby the services agreements and
repeatedly requested by Pohl. g
• Brought suit in Mississippi Federal CBourt claiming Precision was underpaid for
their marketing and public relatioyns services. Precision initially (and correctly)
argued that they were paid by a hourly fee.18 When their lack of supporting time
records became a problemf and when Nicholson became involved in the litigation,
their position changed to that they were guaranteed a percentage of the fee.19 As
will be addressOed below, it was Nicholson who raised the issue of barratry,
provided the Precision witnesses scripts to follow to assert barratry allegation,
and threatened witnesses unless they delivered the scripted testimony concocted
by hier.
• o fPrecision then stole Pohl’s client files, information and computers so that they
could sell them ostensibly as part of a sale of Precision to Favre with Favre then
17 Pohl Declaration ¶ 14 (discussing how Precision’s principals acted as the functional equivalent of employees).
18 See Original Complaint in MS Lawsuit, at 5-6, attached as Exhibit 4 to the Nicholson Motion (discussing how
Precision was entitled to “hourly fees”).
19 See Amended Complaint in MS Lawsuit filed March 17, 2016, at 12-13, attached as Exhibit E (including different
allegations that Precision was entitled to a percentage of fees, not an “hourly rate”).
acting as managing member of Precision to move forward with a concerted
scheme to bring barratry claims against Pohl, Williamson and a third lawyer Rob
Ammons.
After the sale of Precision to Favre, Nicholson represented Favre, Precisiokn and the three
individuals (Ladner, Seymour and Walker) and actively suborned perjury. It lis against this back
drop that Kassab and Nicholson have selectively pulled testimony capparently scripted by
Nicholson and designed to further Precision’s claims in the Mississisppi suit and provide support
for the barratry lawsuit scheme—now largely recanted—to suppsort their assertion of barratry.
The Multiple Grievances
As a starting point, it is important to note that all of the allegedly illegal acts argued by
Kassab and Nicholson were the subject of a grievance brought by Kassab against Pohl individually,
as well as multiple grievances brought by Kasasab as counsel for former clients of Pohl that Kassab
had solicited after purchasing Pohl’s files. Kassab, in a manner very similar to the course chosen
by Kassab and Nicholson for their Meotion for Summary Judgment, submitted over 60 pages of
argument for his individual grievfance and over 2,300 pages of exhibits. However, once Pohl had
an opportunity to respond ywith the actual facts and by pointing out the misstatements and
fabrications in Kassab’Cs submissions, Pohl was cleared of any wrongdoing:
The Kassab a Grievance: State Bar of Texas: Summarily Dismissed.20
The Chf f eatham Grievance:
U• State Bar of Texas: “This office has examined the Grievance and determined that
the information alleged does not demonstrate Professional Misconduct or a
Disability.21
20 See Nov. 15, 2019 Letter from State Bar of Texas: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Ex. F, at 12.
21 See Feb. 24, 2020 Letter from State Bar of Texas: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Ex. G, at 11.
• The Board of Disciplinary Appeals: “After reviewing your grievance as you
originally filed it and no other information, the Board has determined that the
conduct you described in the grievance does not violate the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct.”22 k
The Bikumbu Grievance: C l
• State Bar of Texas: dismissed on limitations grounds:23 c
• The Board of Disciplinary Appeals: “After reviewing your grievance as you
originally filed it and no other information, thse Board has determined that the
conduct you described in the grievance doges not violate the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct.”24 B
The Speck Grievance: y
• State Bar of Texas: dismissed oan limitations grounds:25
• The Board of Disciplinafry Appeals: “After reviewing your grievance as you
originally filed it and no other information, the Board has determined that the
conduct you deOscribed in the grievance does not violate the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct.”26
The Berry Grievance:
• Statie Bar of Texas: dismissed on limitations grounds:27
• o f The Board of Disciplinary Appeals: “After reviewing your grievance as you
originally filed it and no other information, the Board has determined that the
22 See May 14, 2020 Letter from The Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Ex. H, at 5.
23 See Jan. 14, 2020 Letter from State Bar of Texas: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Ex. I, at 10.
24 See April 10, 2020 Letter from The Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Ex. J, at 4.
25 See Jan. 9, 2020 Letter from State Bar of Texas: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Ex. K, at 8.
26 See April 10, 2020 Letter from The Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Ex. L, at 1.
27 See Jan. 9, 2020 Letter from State Bar of Texas: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Ex. M, at 7.
conduct you described in the grievance does not violate the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct.”28
The Miller Grievance:
• State Bar of Texas: “This office has examined the Grievance and kdetermined that
the information alleged does not demonstrate ProfessionCall Misconduct or a
Disability.”29 c
• The Board of Disciplinary Appeals: “After reviewing your grievance as you
originally filed it and no other information, thse Board has determined that the
conduct you described in the grievance doges not violate the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct.”30 B
Undeterred, Kassab and Nicholson rely yheavily for their allegations of barratry upon
portions of testimony from Scott Walker takaen from his 2016 deposition in the Mississippi suit
when: a) he was trying to obtain funds from Pohl and Williamson; b) he was represented by
Nicholson; and c) he was directed by Nicholson on what he should and should not say including
the instruction to pepper his testimfony with barratry allegations.31
Q. (Kassab) Now, I hear what you said. You said that Tina Nicholson prepared
you for the deposoition. Is that what I heard?
A. (Walker) Yes
Q. And idid Ms. Nicholson tell you to lie?
A. She just told us things, buzz words to say. I had never heard the word
“barratry” before, “cold calling.” Those were the things Ms. Nicholson wanted us
to say throughout the deposition as much as we could.”
Q. Do you recall my question?
28 See April 10, 2020 Letter from The Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Ex. N, at 2.
29 See Jan. 9, 2020 Letter from State Bar of Texas: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Ex. O, at 9.
30 See April 10, 2020 Letter from The Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Ex. P, at 3.
31 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 198:19-199:19, 203:15-204:23, Exhibit D.
A. What was it?
Q. I asked you if Ms. Nicholson instructed you or told you to lie in the deposition.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And is it your testimony today that you, in fact, perjured yourself in the
deposition by lying?
A. No. r
Q. Well, did you lie in the deposition? C
A. I listened and did what my attorney said to do.32 t
This is a stunning admission given that Walker is an ex-felon.t He went on to testify that
he did not knowingly intend to lie but relied upon the advice of Nicholson to give the testimony
he gave.33 e
Kassab and Nicholson also rely heavily on a uSeptember 24, 2016 affidavit and some
testimony by Magdelena Santana. While Kassab annd Nicholson do mention that she swore out an
additional affidavit, they do not describe it accur irately. Nor do they mention Ms. Santana’s letter
sent to Judge Starett in Mississippi (among other recipients) and the taped conversation that
occurred solely between Ms. Santana and Kassab.
Ms. Santana’s letter statedf ais follows:34
32 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 203:15-204:23 (emphasis added), Exhibit D.
33 See Deposition of Scott Walker at 205:1-14, Exhibit D; see also Deposition Instructions to Walker, attached as
Exhibit Q (used as Walker Ex. 69 in the deposition); Deposition of Scott Walker at 347:20-350:7, Exhibit D
(authenticating Walker Ex. 69).
34 See October 3, 2017 letter from Magdalena Santana copying Judge Starett, attached as Exhibit R.
10
The private call between Kassab and Santana, secretly recorded by Kassab on August 15th,
2017 confirms her letter to Judge Starret and reflects the pressure brought to bear by Nicholson
and Favre against Ms. Santana:
…I’m still going through emotional distress. Recently I just finished that
subpoena, going to be a year in November, with the whole scenario that they
promised cthat I would – the firm, Tina Nicholson and Scott [Favre], they signed the
documefnft that said that if I testified – actually they were calling my mom’s house,
calling me, saying that if I didn’t come and testify, that I was going to be in
trUouble, that they were going to go send – subpoena my brother. I don’t know. It’s
been super-stressful. It’s been super stressful. They’ve been calling and telling me
all kinds of stuff. And I agreed to go and testify just to avoid any type of problems
to come to my family, to my mother’s house and my brother’s house in the fact –
and due to the fact that they were going to pay me what was owed, they got settled
money and then they just kicked me to the curb.35
35 See Audio Transcription dated August 15, 2017, at pp. 6-7, attached as Exhibit S.
11
And although Kassab sought to coax Santana into supporting the claim that Pohl and
Williamson were involved in an alleged barratry scheme, Santana rejected that contention as well:
MR. KASSAB: My understanding is Williamson Pohl set up the scheme. I thought
that’s what you told me.
MS. SANTANA: The marketing firm is the one that hired me. I didn’t eeven go out
and meet Pohl and Williamson during the course of that whole thing…l.36
Kassab and Nicholson also assert that Pohl paid Santana $50,00c0 and imply that it was
payment to retract her September 14, 2016 affidavit and to sign her Dsecember 19, 2017 affidavit.
This is not only false but is clearly designed to mislead the Cousrt.
The actual facts surrounding the disturbing story of Ms. Santana are as follows. Ms.
Santana wrote/signed the relevant agreements, correspondence and affidavits on the following
dates:
May 21, 2014: Santana/Walker eat al./Pohl release and non-disparagement
agreement a/k/a “sworn statement” M(Santana is paid $50,000 as consideration).
September 24, 2016: Santana’s “ffirst affidavit” (prepared by Tina Nicholson)
October 3, 2017: Santana’s eletter to Favre/Nicholson/Judge Starrett (stating she
was coerced into signing thec “first affidavit”)
December 19, 2017: SOantana’s “second affidavit” (retracting the “first affidavit”).
The Moving Defendants’ reliance on testimony from a retracted affidavit demonstrates that their
Motions are not to be tCaken seriously.
II. ARGUMENT
A. The Efvidence Cited by the Moving Defendants Is Not Competent Summary
Jundgment Evidence and Pohl Objects to Consideration of It.
As a threshold matter, the Moving Defendants rely on numerous inadmissible deposition
transcripts taken in other lawsuits, many of which involve persons who are not parties to this
lawsuit. Additionally, the exhibits attached to Kassab’s Motion are not properly authenticated as
36 Id. at 3-4.
12
evidence, as the attached declaration incorrectly claims that everything attached to Kassab’s
Motion are business records of Kassab’s firm. The lack of seriousness with which the Moving
Defendants approach summary judgment evidence is not surprising, given that the motions also
rely on controverted evidence, which cannot support a traditional motion for summkary judgment.
The Moving Parties cite to numerous deposition transcripts from plrior lawsuits that
constitute inadmissible hearsay that the Court should disregard. The Tcexas Rules of Evidence
provide an exclusion from the hearsay rule for testimony from a desposition “taken in the same
proceeding.” TEX. R. EVID. 801(3). However, deposition testims ony from a different proceeding
is inadmissible unless it falls within an exclusion to the hearsay rule. See Taylor v. Baylor Scott
& White Med. Ctr.-Frisco, No. 05-20-00352-CV, 2022 WL 405896, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Feb. 10, 2022, no pet.) (“Because the record establishes that Dr. Carmody’s deposition testimony
is not from the same proceeding, and the deposaition did not fall within any exclusion to the hearsay
rule, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence.”).
Kassab cites to eight differenet inadmissible deposition transcripts from prior lawsuits.37
These are not tangential to Kassfab’s Motion, as he cites to these inadmissible depositions well
over a hundred times. See gyenerally Kassab’s Motion. Nicholson’s Motion fares a little better.
She cites to four diffeCrent inadmissible deposition transcripts from prior lawsuits38 well over a
dozen times. See generally Nicholson’s Motion. Furthermore, Kassab incorporated Nicholson’s
briefing and evfifdence. See Kassab’s Motion, at 2. Pohl objects to these exhibits, and the Court
should exUclude all of this inadmissible evidence and deny the Motions as insufficient on this
ground alone.
37 See Kassab Ex. 3-A; Kassab Ex. 3-B; Kassab Ex. 4; Kassab Ex. 7; Kassab Ex. 8; Kassab Ex. 15; Kassab Ex. 25;
Kassab Ex. 39.
38 See Nicholson Ex. 18; Nicholson Ex. 19; Nicholson Ex. 25; Nicholson Ex. 26.
13
Pohl also objects on the grounds that Kassab’s Motion improperly attempts to authenticate
evidence as business records without proper support. Despite attaching 60 exhibits, which include
items like contracts to which Kassab is not a party39 and correspondence between third parties,40
Kassab attempts to authenticate all of the exhibits by stating: k
Attached to the Motion are true and correct copies of documents whichl were either
exchanged in discovery in the Barratry Litigation, including document production
and depositions, or used in the Barratry Litigation, like declacrations from my
clients. These documents are considered business records of the Frirm and have been
kept in the regular course of business. The records attached tos the Motion are exact
duplicates.41 D
First, this does not satisfy the requirements of a business recsords affidavit. See TEX. R. EVID.
902(10). Furthermore, much of the evidence cannot satisfry the requirements of a business record,
as there is no way for David Kassab to be familiar with the creation of items that were produced
in discovery by other parties and whether “the relcord was made at or near the time by—or from
information transmitted by—someone withM knowledge.” See TEX. R. EVID. 803(6)(A).
Because they are not properly aouthenticated as evidence, the Court should not consider
Kassab Exhibits 2-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17c, 20-21, 23-28, 30-34, 36-38, 40, & 51.
B. Pohl’s Claims are Not Barred by Limitations.
Pohl’s claims against the Moving Defendants accrued no earlier than November 2016
because they arise from the November 2016 purchase—and subsequent use—of information and
property stolen frcom Pohl. As no claim has a limitations period of less than two years, and Pohl
brought this lawsuit in August 2018, Pohl’s claims are not barred.
39See, e.g., Kassab Exhibits 26 & 31.
40 See, e.g., Kassab Exhibit 38.
41 See Declaration of David Kassab ¶ 5, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Kassab Motion.
14
1. The summary judgment standard for the affirmative defense of limitations.
Defendants seeking summary judgment on limitations bear the burden of proof and must
conclusively prove when each of the alleged causes of action accrued. See Regency Field Services,
LLC v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC, 622 S.W.3d 807, 818 (Tex. 2021) (“a defkendant seeking
summary judgment based on limitations must conclusively establish that thel limitations period
expired before the claimant filed suit”). “Generally, a claim accruecs when the defendant’s
wrongful conduct causes the claimant to suffer a legal injury, which gsives the claimant the right to
seek a judicial remedy.” Id. Texas courts apply specific tests to determine the accrual of certain
claims, including the three claims at issue here.
A claim for conversion generally accrues at the time of the defendant’s “unlawful taking”
of the plaintiff’s property. See Burns v. Rochon, 190 S.W.3d 263, 271 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2006, no pet.). When property is alleged to have been converted and then transferred to
another party, “each possession is a new conversion.” Pemex Exploracion y Produccion v. BASF
Corp., CIV.A. H-10-1997, 2013 WLe 5514944, at *31 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2013) (citation omitted)
(applying Texas law). There is a ftwo-year limitations period for conversion. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE § 16.003(a). y
“A cause of acCtion for trade-secret misappropriation accrues when the trade secret is
actually used. Use aof the trade secret means commercial use by which the offending party seeks
to profit from thfe use of the secret.” Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699,
721–22 (UTex. 2016) (cleaned up). There is a three-year limitations period for TUTSA violations.
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.010(a). The civil conspiracy claim is derivative of the
underlying torts, and it accrues “as to each alleged underlying tort when that tort occurs.” Agar
Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int’l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136, 145 (Tex. 2019).
15
2. Pohl’s claims accrued within two years of the initiation of this suit.
Pohl brought suit on August 28, 2018.42 Because Pohl’s conversion claim accrued after
August 28, 2016 and Pohl’s TUTSA claim accrued after August 28, 2015, the affirmative defense
of limitations fails. k
Pohl’s conversion claim arises from Defendants’ purchase and slubsequent use of
information and property that they knew had been stolen from Pohl. Seec Amended Complaint ¶¶
36–38.43 The evidence shows that Defendants made this purchasse through a contract dated
November 10, 2016.44 The Defendants took possession of at least some of Pohl’s information and
property no earlier than that date and mostly beginning in De e cember 2016.45
Pohl’s conversion claim accrued when the Defendants obtained Pohl’s property. See Burns
v. Rochon, 190 S.W.3d 263, 271 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Contrary to the
Defendants’ arguments, a prior claim for conversion against other individuals or entities is entirely
irrelevant, as “each possession is a new conversion.” Pemex Exploracion y Produccion v. BASF
Corp., CIV.A. H-10-1997, 2013 WLe 5514944, at *31 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2013) (emphasis added)
(applying Texas law). Defendafnts’ liability did not accrue when other people and entities
committed wrongs against Pyohl; that liability accrues when Defendants themselves committed the
tortious acts. BecauseC the contract to purchase the property is dated in November 2016,46 and
Kassab was still acaquiring possession of the stolen property in December 2016,47 Pohl’s claim
against Kassab ffor conversion accrued, no earlier than November 2016—well within the two-year
period. U
42 See generally Pohl’s Original Petition, filed August 28, 2018.
43 See also November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration.
44 Id.
45 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration.
46 November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration.
47 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration.
16
Pohl’s TUTSA claim is based on Defendants’ knowing purchase and subsequent use of
stolen trade secrets. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 39–42. Pohl’s TUTSA claim accrued upon the
Defendants’ use of Pohl’s stolen trade secrets. See Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491
S.W.3d 699, 721–22 (Tex. 2016). For Defendants to obtain summary judgmentk on limitations,
they must conclusively show that Pohl’s TUTSA claim against accrued prior tlo August 28, 2015.
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.010(a) (providing a three-year limcitations period). Pohl’s
claims accrued no earlier than November 10, 2016, as that is the date osf the contract through which
Defendants purchased Pohl’s trade secrets.48 Given that Defensdants had not collected all of the
materials by December 7, 2015,49 their use of Pohl’s trade secrets—and the accrual of Pohl’s
TUTSA claim—occurred after November 10, 2016.
3. The arguments and evidence about the actions of others are irrelevant to the Moving
Defendants’ limitations defense. l
Kassab and Nicholson focus on wrMongful conduct by others—conduct that does not give
rise to Pohl’s claims in this lawsuit—too argue that limitations bars Pohl’s claims. See Nicholson
Defendants’ Motion at 36-40; Kascsab Defendants’ Motion at 45-51. However, in determining
when claims accrued against a defendant, it is that defendant’s alleged wrongful conduct that is
relevant, not the conduct of others. Defendants’ participation in the sale and purchase of Pohl’s
information, through a contract dated in November 2016, and their subsequent use of that
information is thec conduct that gives rise to Pohl’s claims. See Amended Petition ¶¶ 21–23, 26–
29, 33.50 D o efendants’ arguments suggest a sort of reverse discovery rule—i.e., they hope to
convince the Court that because Pohl allegedly knew that others may have stolen and otherwise
48 November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration.
49 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration.
50 See November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration; Declaration of Lance Christopher
Kassab, attached as Exhibit 1 to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss, filed October 24, 2018, attached as Exhibit B.
17
mistreated certain of his trade secrets and other property belonging to him, his causes of action for
separate torts by these Defendants accrued before any Defendants had even committed the torts
for which Pohl seeks to recover. The discovery rule does not operate to shorten the statutory
limitations period to cause a claim to accrue before the defendant commits a tort. k
Even if the wrongful conduct of others (that did not give rise to Polhl’s claims) were
somehow relevant to a limitations defense—and it is not—the Movincg Defendants have not
factually established that Pohl “knew or in the exercise of reasonable dsiligence should have known
of the wrongful act and resulting injury” more than three years psrior to this lawsuit for his TUTSA
claim and more than two years prior for the conversion claim. See Regency Field Services, LLC
v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC, 622 S.W.3d 807, 817 (Tex. 2021).
Nicholson argues that Pohl knew or should have known that Precision stole the trade
secrets in 2014 or that Favre claimed ownaership of the trade secret documents and Pohl’s
computers by no later than May 2015. She does not explain, however, how that knowledge can
possibly trigger limitations on sepaerate torts committed by Nicholson. She cites case law
indicating that trade secrets claimfs are not continuing offences and that “the wrong occurs at the
time of the improper acquisiytion.” Nicholson Defendants’ Motion at 42. Pohl agrees—the wrong
occurred no earlier thaCn the time of the improper acquisition of the trade secrets, no earlier than
November or December 2016. How could Pohl have known about that in May 2015 when it had
not even happef fned yet?
SiUmilarly, Kassab argues that “at least of May 2015, Pohl knew that Walker and Ladner
had transferred the alleged trade secrets to Favre.” Such knowledge, even if established, does not
address a claim of conversion or theft of trade secrets committed by Kassab. Kassab also purports
to negate the application of the discovery rule through Pohl’s testimony. The evidence Kassab
18
cites suggests only that Pohl may have had knowledge of some wrongful conduct by some
individual or individuals that occurred in 2014.51 It does not address when Pohl knew of Kassab’s
own wrongful conduct.52 Again, the discovery rule does not cause limitations to commence before
the defendant has even committed the wrongful act for which the plaintiff sues. k
As much as they struggle to establish their limitations defense as a maltter of law, Kassab
and Nicholson have at most raised a question of fact regarding the acccrual date of the asserted
causes of action. Indeed, the evidence is undisputed that as to Kassabs and Nicholson, the dates of
their torts are well within the statutory limitations period. Thse Court should deny the Moving
Defendants’ Motions to the extent that they are based on limitations.
C. The Unlawful Acts Doctrine53 is not legally available or factually established.
The Moving Defendants expend pages and pages and submit volumes of exhibits—
including exhibits that are not competent evidaence—attempting to establish their contention that
Pohl committed various violations of the Texas Rules. See Nicholson Defendants’ Motion at 3-
25; Kassab Defendants’ Motion at 3-3e2. Apparently disappointed in their inability to successfully
present this collection of materifals in their failed efforts to obtain a judgment against Pohl—
through separate failed lawsuyits—they are attempting to salvage some value out of it by submitting
to the Court in this caseC. This “evidence” has no place here. It is irrelevant, it establishes nothing
as a matter of law, and it is simply an attempt to distract from the Moving Defendants’ patently
51 See Exhibit 58 to Kassab’s Motion (discussing Pohl’s knowledge and contentions made in May 2018).
52 See generally id.
What Pohl’s prior testimony shows is that he was contending that, at that time, he believed Kassab had
conspired with individuals who had previously wronged Pohl. As a co-conspirator, Kassab would thus be responsible
for their acts. A past belief about conspirator liability does not change the fact that Kassab’s wrongful conduct took
place within the limitations period.
53 The Moving Defendants variously characterize this defense as the “illegal acts rule,” the “unlawful acts doctrine,”
“in pari delicto” and “equity.” This section of Pohl’s response covers each of those defenses, as they are treated as
interchangeable by the Moving Defendants.
19
tortious acts. Furthermore, to the extent that the doctrine could have applied, it is preempted by
Texas’s proportionate responsibility statute.
1. The Unlawful Acts Doctrine is preempted.
To the extent that the unlawful acts doctrine could have any relevance tok this case, it is
preempted by Texas’s proportionate responsibility statute. In Dugger v. Arrledondo, the Texas
Supreme Court explicitly considered “whether the common law unlawful cacts doctrine is available
as an affirmative defense under the proportionate responsibility framsework.” 408 S.W.3d 825,
831–32 (Tex. 2013). The Court found that ""it is not,” and thast “[t]he plain language of section
33.003 clearly indicates that the common law unlawful acts doctrine is no longer a viable defense.”
Id. at 832.
The claims alleged against the Moving Defendants, conversion, theft of trade secrets, and
conspiracy, are torts that are subject to the praoportionate liability statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 33.002. Kassab clearly thinks this statute applies as well, as he filed a flawed motion
to designate responsible third partiees under this statute. See generally Kassab’s Motion to
Designate Responsible Third Parfties, filed May 13, 2022. While Kassab is incorrect that people
other than defendants in this ylawsuit are responsible for the damages Pohl seeks, he cannot dispute
that the unlawful acts dCoctrine is not a valid defense in this lawsuit.
2. Even if not preempted, the Unlawful Acts Doctrine does not apply in this case.
Under Tf fexas law, the concepts of “unlawful acts,” “illegal acts rule,” or “in pari delicto”
provide tUhat “no action may be predicated upon an admittedly unlawful act of the party asserting
it.” Denson v. Dallas Cnty. Credit Union, 262 S.W.3d 846, 855 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)
(emphasis added). Courts have interpreted this defense to mean that if the illegal act is inextricably
intertwined with the claim and the alleged damages would not have occurred but for the illegal act,
20
the plaintiff is not entitled to recover as a matter of law.” See Sharpe v. Turley, 191 S.W.3d 362,
366 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied).
An examination of the caselaw—including the caselaw cited by the Moving Defendants—
shows that courts apply the doctrine when “at the time of the plaintiff’s injury, tkhe plaintiff was
engaged in an illegal act, and that act contributed to the injury.” Andrew Sheblay & Co., P.L.L.C.
v. Bishop, 429 S.W.3d 644, 648–49 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 20c13, pet. denied); Kassab
Defendants’ Motion at 62 (citing Bishop). It is not enough to plausibsly connect a claim to illegal
conduct, courts look at whether the plaintiff’s claim is prediscated on and must be proven in
connection with an illegal act. See Carcamo-Lopez v. Does 1 through 20, 865 F. Supp. 2d 736,
767 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (“But when the illegal conduct arises in a defense and not in the plaintiff’s
case, the unlawful acts rule will not bar a plaintiff’s claims.”).
As an initial matter, there is no “admitatedly unlawful act” that would allow the application
of the doctrine. See Macias v. Moreno, 30 S.W.3d 25, 29 (Tex. App.—El Paso El Paso 2000, pet.
denied). In addition, any alleged unlaewful act was not inextricably intertwined with Pohl’s causes
of action. To determine whether tfhe illegal act is “inextricably intertwined” courts look to whether
“whether the person seekingy to enforce [his claim] requires any aid from the illegal transaction to
establish his case.” SeCe Marathon Oil Co. v. Hadley, 107 S.W.2d 883, 885 (Tex. Civ. App. 1935)
(quotation omitted).
No recof fvery can be had if it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove, as part of his
cause of action, his own illegal contract or other illegal transaction. But the plaintiff
mUay recover if he can show a complete cause of action without being obliged to
prove his own illegal act, although such act may incidentally appear, and may be
explanatory even of other facts in the case, it being sufficient if his cause of action
is not essentially founded upon something which is illegal.
Id. See also Macias, 30 S.W.3d at 29 (“However, if a party can show a complete cause of action
without being obliged to prove their own illegal act, although the illegal act may appear
21
incidentally and may be important in explanation of other facts in the case, they may recover.”).
Pohl can certainly demonstrate the elements of each of his claims without being required to prove
any illegal act.54 Nothing about Pohl’s claims requires him to show that his client contracts are
enforceable or are free from any alleged barratrous activity. He owns his own kclient contracts
regardless of how he procured them. l
Another impediment to the application of the unlawful acts thec Texas Supreme Court
clarified long ago that the illegal act must have been a proximate casuse of the plaintiff’s injury.
Pyeatt v. Anderson, 269 S.W. 429, 430 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1s925); Arredondo v. Dugger, 347
S.W.3d 757, 761–62 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011), aff’d 408 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 2013); Petta v. Rivera,
985 S.W.2d 199, 204 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1998), rev’d on other grounds sub
nom. Texas Dep’t of Public Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2001). Even crediting the Moving
Defendants’ arguments, any illegal act by Paohl is not the proximate cause of Pohl’s injuries.
Instead, the cause of his injuries were the tortious acts of the Moving Defendants.
The illegal acts doctrine is noet applicable to Pohl’s claims as a matter of law. Whether
Pohl committed any of the acts thef Moving Defendants allege (and he did not) is in no way relevant
to Pohl’s claims against themy. It is nothing more than a side-show. And, as set forth below, the
Moving Defendants haCve wholly failed to establish their defense as a matter of fact.
3. Kassab’s use of caselaw on the unlawful acts doctrine is misleading.
Kassabf fcontends that “Texas courts have applied the Unlawful Acts Rule to preclude
claims arUising from barratry.” Kassab’s Motion, at 64 (emphasis removed). They cite to Truyen
Luong v. McAllister, No. 01-17-00198-CV, 2018 WL 3651103 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
54 As addressed more fully below, the Moving Defendants’ strident contentions that Pohl obtained the client lists and
other property and materials through “illegal acts” are false, as evidenced by the failure of both the grievance procedure
and their barratry suits.
22
Aug. 2, 2018, pet. denied). Id. But Kassab’s discussion of McAllister has no bearing on this
lawsuit. McAllister dealt with a non-lawyer suing to recover compensation under an agreement
where all parties admitted the compensation was a percentage of a lawyer’s fees. McAllister, 2018
WL 3651103, at *2. The court held that “the contract was void due to illegality.” k Id. at *4. Pohl
is not attempting to enforce any client agreement or agreement with anyone whlo worked for him.
The fact that a court refused to enforce a contract that was admittedly illecgal is not surprising, and
it provides no guidance in this case. s
4. The Moving Defendants have not and cannot establissh that Pohl committed illegal acts.
The Moving Defendants allege that their torts are excused because Pohl allegedly violated
the Texas Rules governing lawyers in four ways: (1) practicing law in other jurisdictions without
a license; (2) sharing an office with non-lawyers; (3) illegally soliciting clients; and (4) failing to
protect confidential client information. Saee Nicholson Defendants’ Motion at 1; Kassab
Defendants’ Motion at 2. Although the Moving Defendants go to some length in their effort to
establish these allegations as a mattere of law, they have wholly failed to do so. At most, they have
raised a fact issue regarding wholfly irrelevant allegations.
Before addressing tyhe individual allegations relating to Pohl’s actions, it deserves
repeating: these allegCed actions were brought to the attention of the relevant authorities
through grievance a s filed with the State Bar of Texas, which dismissed the grievances.55 For
those grievancfefs that were appealed to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, that Board rendered
findings tUhat “the Board has determined that the conduct you described in the grievance does
not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional and affirms the dismissal.” The
contention that Pohl violated the Texas Rules governing lawyers has been determined, and the
55 See Grievance dismissal letters, attached as Exhibit T.
23
claim has failed. This Court should decline to rehear these allegations, as they have been resolved.
Furthermore, as set forth below, they are false.
a. Pohl did not engage in unauthorized practice of law.
The State Bar of Texas appropriately dismissed claims against Pohl krelating to the
unauthorized practice of law because Pohl at all times attempted to conform tlo the requirements
relating to practicing in states in which he was not licensed.56 Moreovcer, the process for filing
claims relating to the BP Matter did not even require that a licensesd attorney participate in the
filing.57
The materials that the Moving Defendants have submitted do not conclusively establish
that Pohl engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Instead, to the extent that the question can
even be considered by this Court, given that the State Bar of Texas has finally resolved the issue,
there is substantial controverting evidence. Aaccordingly, the allegation does not provide a basis
on which to enter summary judgment in the Moving Defendants’ favor.
b. Pohl shared office space weith contractors and secretaries who worked for him full time.
The Moving Defendants afttack Pohl for sharing office space with non-lawyers. Here again,
the State Bar of Texas propeyrly dismissed the claim because Pohl employed everyone with whom
he shared an office, Cor they were a functional equivalent of an employee or a lawyer’s
representative.58 a
The maf fterials that the Moving Defendants have submitted do not support much less
conclusivUely establish that Pohl wrongfully shared office space with non-lawyers. Instead, to the
extent that the question can even be considered by this Court given that the State Bar of Texas has
56 Pohl Declaration, ¶ 17.
57 Id. ¶ 29.
58 Id. ¶ 14.
24
finally resolved the issue, there is substantial controverting evidence. Accordingly, the allegation
does not provide a basis on which to enter summary judgment in the Moving Defendants’ favor.
c. Pohl legally solicited his clients.
Pohl instructed all of those working for him as subcontractors never to illegkally solicit any
potential client.59 Pohl himself never intentionally directly or illegally solilcited any client or
clients.60 Pohl at all times attempted to adhere to the rules of the Statec Bar of Texas and other
relevant states regarding the solicitation of clients.61 s
The materials that the Moving Defendants have submitsted do not conclusively establish
that Pohl illegally solicited clients. Instead, to the extent that the question can even be considered
by this Court given that the State Bar of Texas has finally resolved the issue, there is substantial
controverting evidence. Accordingly, the allegation does not provide a basis on which to enter
summary judgment in the Moving Defendantsa’ favor.
d. Pohl reasonably protected client information.
Pohl testified in his depositioen regarding the reasonable steps he took to protect the client
information, confidential informaftion, and trade secrets that are the subject matter of this suit.62
At all times, Pohl strictly limyited access to the trade secrets, and he ensured that those who had
access to that informatiCon fully understood as part of their professional obligations the confidential
character of that a information.63 Pohl also testified that “numerous times throughout the
relationship,” hfef emphasized to Precision and its employees the importance of confidentiality.64
59 Id. ¶ 30.
60 Id. ¶
61 Id. ¶
62 Pohl Deposition, at 15:21-16:18, attached as Exhibit U.
63 Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 14-15, Exhibit A; see also Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, 321:5-324:7, Exhibit
D; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 355:18–358:10, 372:7–374:24, 377:4–23, 501:3–502:18, Exhibit V; Deposition of
Steve Seymour, at 96:16-24, 223:1-20, Exhibit W.
64 Deposition of Michael Pohl, at 23:5-21, Ex. U.
25
The materials that the Moving Defendants have submitted do not conclusively establish
that Pohl failed to protect client information. Instead, to the extent that the question can even be
considered by this Court given that the State Bar of Texas has finally resolved the issue, there is
substantial controverting evidence. Accordingly, the allegation does not provide ak basis on which
to enter summary judgment in the Moving Defendants’ favor. l
e. Pohl legally obtained the materials at issue. c
The Moving Defendants also assert that Pohl cannot recover fosr their violations of TUTSA
because the materials at issue did not legally belong to him. Tshis allegation depends entirely on
the Moving Defendants’ failed arguments relating to the unauthorized practice of law and illegal
solicitation of clients. For the same reasons that those arguments fail, this challenge to Pohl’s
ownership of the materials at issue fails and does not provide a basis on which to enter summary
judgment in the Moving Defendants’ favor. a
Additionally, the Moving Defendants seem to suggest that Pohl cannot own his client
contracts if they are illegal. Howeveer, TEX. GOV’T CODE § 82.0651(a) indicates that an attorney-
client contract is voidable, not vfoid. There is no evidence that any of Pohl’s contracts were
declared void, as provided foyr in the barratry statute. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 82.0651(a). Thus, even
if the Moving DefendaCnts were correct factually on the barratry issue—and they are not—Pohl’s
contracts were still effective and worthy of protection. The Moving Defendants failed to establish
as a matter of lfafw that Pohl does not own the materials at issue.
InU any event, Pohl does not have to demonstrate how he acquired his engagement
agreements with his clients or his client files to pursue his claims. The agreements are clear on
their face. While Kassab claims to have relied upon the non-lawyers Walker and Ladner, and
Favre relied on Nicholson for the idea that Precision somehow owned Pohl’s files, the evidence
26
(and an ounce of common sense) does not support it. Walker repeatedly admitted that he knew
the attorney-client contracts, the computers containing Pohl’s files and any list of clients belonged
to Pohl.65 Mr. Ladner indicated that he believed those materials belonged to Pohl, questioned
Favre about it and was told to consult Nicholson. Nicholson told him that Pohl’ks contracts and
files did not belong to Pohl.66 However, in reality, Ladner had to concede thalt the contracts and
case files were all “Pohl’s stuff.”67 c
D. None of the Asserted Immunity Doctrines Apply. s
The Moving Defendants hope to cloak their tortious actsions in one variety or another of
immunity, variously asserting attorney immunity, judicial proceeding privilege, and immunity for
filing a grievance. None of these doctrines supplies the shield that the Moving Defendants hope
to hide behind.
Pohl sued the Moving Defendants for coanverting his property and misappropriating his trade
secrets. They argue that they are entitled to immunity because after they engaged in this wrongful
acquisition of property and informateion, they sought to profit from their torts by suing Pohl for
barratry and other claims. Texas fdoes not recognize any form of immunity for the tortious actions
of lawyers taken outside they attorney-client relationship and outside of the judicial process. As
hard as the Moving DCefendants may try to characterize their actions as being part of “judicial
proceedings” or as being part of their work as attorneys, that effort fails.
1. The aftftorney immunity doctrine does not apply.
TUhe common-law attorney-immunity defense applies to lawyerly work in “all adversarial
contexts in which an attorney has a duty to zealously and loyally represent a client” but only when
65 Deposition of Scott Walker, at 316-319; 327-329, Ex. D.
66 Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 119:21-120:15, 127:5-25, 340:10-342:17, Exhibit V.
67 Id. at 350:11-351:21, 356:11-359:12.
27
the claim against the attorney is based on “the kind of conduct” attorneys undertake while
discharging their professional duties to a client. Taylor v. Tolbert, 644 S.W.3d 637, 646 (Tex.
2022). Where, as here, an attorney engages in conduct that is not “lawyerly work” or is “entirely
foreign to the duties of a lawyer” or falls outside the scope of client representatiokn, the attorney-
immunity defense is inapplicable. Id.; see also Haynes & Boone, LLP v. NFTDl, LLC, 631 S.W.3d
65, 67 (Tex. 2021); Landry’s, Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, 63c1 S.W.3d 40, 47 (Tex.
2021); Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 201s5).
Attorney immunity does not protect conduct s 
simply because attorneys often engage in that activity or because an attorney
performed the activity on a client’s behalf. Ratherr, the conduct must involve the
uniquely lawyerly capacity and the attorney’s skills as an attorney. For example, a
lawyer who makes publicity statements to the press and on social media on a client’s
behalf does not partake of the office, professional training, skill, and authority of an
attorney because anyone—including presls agents, spokespersons, or someone with
no particular training or authority at aall—can publicize a client’s allegations to the
media. Immunity attaches only if theM attorney is discharging “lawyerly” duties to his
or her client. 
Tolbert, 644 S.W.3d at 646 (footnotees omitted) (cleaned up).
The Texas Supreme Courft has held that two inquiries are relevant to an attorney-immunity
defense: “the type of conduyct at issue and the existence of an attorney–client relationship at the
time.” Youngkin v. HCines, 546 S.W.3d 675, 683 (Tex. 2018). The claims against the Moving
Defendants do not fall within the attorney-immunity doctrine because the conduct at issue does
not qualify as “f fthe kind of conduct in which an attorney engages when discharging his duties to
his clientU.” Canty Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 2015). The Moving
Defendants have not and cannot establish the existence of an attorney–client relationship at the
time of their wrongful conduct.
28
The Moving Defendants’ knowing purchase of stolen property before representation of a
client is neither within the scope of the client representation nor is it an activity undertaken in a
“uniquely lawyerly capacity.” See Landry’s, 631 S.W.3d at 47. The use of the information by the
Moving Defendants to solicit and advertise to obtain clients is not within the kscope of client
representation, because this conduct necessarily precedes the “meeting of thel minds” between a
potential client and attorney necessary to form an attorney–client relationcship. See Tanox, Inc. v.
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 105 S.W.3d 244, 254–55s (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). s 
The Moving Defendants attempt to address this issue by arguing the non-relevant point
that attorney immunity can apply prior to any litigation. While the doctrine can in certain
circumstances apply prior to litigation, that fact is not relevant here. Pohl asserts claims for
conduct, not just before litigation, but before thae Moving Defendants had a single client with whom
they could have the requisite attorney–client relationship. Tanox, Inc. v. Akin, Gump, Strauss,
Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 105 S.W.3d e244, 254–55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet.
denied) (noting that attorney–clifent relationship cannot be formed prior to a “meeting of the
minds”). y
In sum, the MoCving Defendants cannot show that their wrongful actions were “within the
scope of client representation” and were “not foreign to the duties of a lawyer.” Youngkin, 546
S.W.3d at 682f. f Immunity arises only if a lawyer can establish as a matter of law that when he
engaged Uin his alleged wrongful acts, he was acting not only within the scope of client
representation, but that there was something “particular to ‘the office, professional training, skill,
and authority of an attorney’ about” his alleged wrongful conduct. See Landry’s, 631 S.W.3d at
47.
29
Because the Moving Defendants did not and cannot provide evidence of the existence of
an attorney–client relationship at the time of their wrongful actions and evidence that those actions
were within the scope of their representation, their request for summary judgment on the attorney-
immunity doctrine must be denied. The fact that their wrongful conduct of pukrchasing stolen
information was not the type of conduct undertaken in a “uniquely lawyerly caplacity” only further
supports this conclusion. c
2. The judicial proceedings privilege does not apply. s
The judicial proceedings privilege applies only to commsunications “in the due course of a
judicial proceeding” and the privilege protects against a claim for libel or slander. Landry’s, 631
S.W.3d at 46. Given that the basis of Pohl’s claim is not a communication made in the due course
of a judicial proceeding and given that Pohl has not sued for libel or slander, the judicial
proceedings privilege does not apply as a matater of law.
Kassab argues that even though Pohl’s claims do not assert claims for libel or slander, the
judicial proceedings privilege shoueld apply because Pohl’s claims arise somehow out of
communications. Pohl’s claims dfo not however, arise out of communications. They arise out of
theft. Misappropriation of ytrade secrets is not a form of communication, nor is conversion.
Kassab’s arguments faCil.
3. The judicial proceedings privilege does not apply. Section 17.09 of the Texas
Disciplicnary Rules does not apply
Although Kassab contends baldly that “it is undisputed that Pohl’s allegations of
wrongdoing are predicated on Kassab’s filing of grievances against Pohl,” Kassab Defendants’
Motion at 35, that is untrue. Instead, Pohl’s suit is predicated on the Defendants’ conversion of
his property and misappropriation of his trade secrets. The fact that Kassab subsequently used
those trade secrets and that property to file grievances does not trigger the protections of TEX. R.
30
DISC. P. 17.09. In short, that section does not apply to the claims asserted here, as they are based
on conversion and theft.
E. Pohl’s Claims Have Not Been Released
Nicholson erroneously contends that the Settlement Agreement that she repkeatedly ignored
and flagrantly breached released her from the claims that Pohl now asserts. Thlis argument fails.
As an initial matter, Nicholson has provided the Court with no adcmissible evidence of the
terms of the Settlement Agreement on which they rely. Althougsh the Amended Motion for
Traditional Summary Judgment purports to quote the termss of the confidential agreement,
Nicholson has not attached or verified the agreement itself. Without the Settlement Agreement as
evidence, the Court cannot enter summary judgment on the argument that it contains release
language that would effectively release the claims asserted here.
In addition, contrary to Nicholson’s ianterpretation of the language of the releases in the
Settlement Agreement, that language does not provide a release for future torts not yet committed
by the released parties at the time of tehe Settlement Agreement.
More importantly, howefver, the Settlement Agreement requires specific actions (in
addition to the return of docyuments) that Nicholson quite plainly violated. That is, Paragraph 27
of the Settlement AgreCement provides that “Claimants and Affiliates of Claimants promise and
agree not to make or cause to be made any claim, not to file or cause to be filed any complaint
(administrativef for otherwise), and not to file or cause to be filed any legal action against any of the
Lawyer RUeleasees [which includes Pohl].” Nicholson’s blatant violation of this provision
invalidates any contention that the Settlement Agreement Releases her from the claims Pohl asserts
here.
31
F. Pohl’s TUTSA Claim is not “Conclusively Negated”
Nicholson contends that Pohl’s TUTSA claim is “conclusively negated” because of the
absence of a confidentiality provision in Pohl’s agreement with Precision. This is not a
requirement of TUTSA, which simply requires “reasonable measures under the cirkcumstances” to
preserve confidentiality. This also ignores the “circumstance” of the special natlure of the attorney-
client relationship and the ability and often need for a lawyer to share mcaterials with employees,
consultants, and vendors who qualify as “lawyer representatives” usnder Rule 503 of the Texas
Rules of Evidence. s 
Moreover, Pohl has sworn that he took steps to protect and limit access to the trade secrets,
and he ensured that those who had access to that information fully understood as part of their
professional obligations the confidential character of that information.68
These steps include (and are corroboraated by Precision representatives):
• Pohl informed Precision and all of the staff of the confidential and privileged
nature of the informateion and instructed them to treat them accordingly.69
• Pohl maintained hfis office at the top of Hancock Bank – “the most secure location
on the coast. y ”70
• The buCilding had 24 hour/round the clock security.71
• The elevators were coded such that one could only get to one’s own floors.72
• fThere were security cameras at every floor.73
68 Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 14-15, Exhibit A.
69 Id.; Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, Exhibit D; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 372:7–374:24, Exhibit
70 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, Exhibit D; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 372:7–374:24, Exhibit
71 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, Exhibit D.
72 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 322:9-23, Exhibit D.
73 Id.
32
• The documents and computers were kept under “lock and seal.”74
• The engagement agreements were clearly labeled to identify them as contracts
between lawyers and clients.75
While Nicholson claims that the lists at issue here have been previously usekd as exhibits in
various depositions and hearings, she ignore the facts surrounding the limiteCd plroduction.
First, Pohl and Williamson were both lawyers who owed duties tco their clients and had a
proprietary interest in their own files. All of the defendants were “lawyer representatives” and had
a continuing responsibility to protect the confidential informatsion of both Pohl and Williamson
and the underlying clients. g
Second, all of the parties to the Mississippi laBwsuit already had the either possession (by
virtue of stealing Pohl’s files) or a proprietary iynterest in and in some cases possession of the
documents (Pohl and Williamson). Any limaited production simply went from one party who
already had the information to another party who had the information and did not expand
disclosure of privileged and confidential information beyond those that already had it.
Unsurprisingly, Defendanfts have offered no authority to support the assertion that merely
producing information from one party with continuing duties to protect it to another party who
already has the informaCtion and a continuing duty to protect it somehow waives confidentiality.
Equally important, and surprisingly absent from Kassab’s and Nicholson’s motion, are two
separate ordersf f issued in the Mississippi suit. On October 14th, 2016, Magistrate Judge John C.
Gargiulo Udenied Precision’s Motion for Protective Order where they sought to prevent discovery
of any of the “marketing lists” in their possession. In denying the motion, Judge Garguilo orders
the production of information but with very strict confidentiality protections, limiting who can
74 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 283:17-284:22, Exhibit D.
75 Pohl Declaration ¶ 15, Ex. A.
33
even have access to the client-based information.76 This was followed up by a letter from Pohl’s
counsel Mr. Bailey.77
On March 22, 2017, Judge Garguilo issued a protective order that was sought by all parties
and approved as to form by all counsel. In that order, the Court defined “Confidentikal Information”
as including the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the Pohl and/orl Williamson along
with amount of gross recovery and fees received and placed strict protectiocns on that information.78
While the Order indicated that it did not apply to previously produceds documents or to Exhibit 70
(which had been previously publicly filed and merely contasined information about totals of
categories of clients and did not identify individual clients), it specifically held that it did apply to
the underlying data to Exhibit 70 (the individual client information) and to any supplements of
Exhibit 70 and to the underlying data to the supplements.79 Accordingly, to the extent even needed
given the continuing duties of the parties and athe fact that all parties already had the information,
the Court reinforced the confidentiality of all the underlying client data by specifically holding it
fell within the scope of the Confidenteiality Order.
Finally, even ignoring allf of the above, Defendants have no summary judgment evidence
that the client lists and client ycontact information is the same or even overlaps. Instead, they simply
erroneously assert that Cclient lists were submitted without the protection of a protective order. Far
from conclusively establishing anything at all, Nicholson has at most raised a potential fact issue
relative to somfef of the materials that are the subject of the suit.
76 See October 14, 2016 Order from Mississippi Court, attached as Exhibit X.
77 See October 27, 2016 email and letter from Counsel to Pohl, attached as Exhibit Y.
78 See Exhibit 21 to the Nicholson Motion, at 1-2.
79 Exhibit 70 is attached hereto as Exhibit Z.
34
G. Pohl’s ownership has not been disproven.
Kassab’s allegations regarding the ownership of Pohl’s trade secrets and information are
self-defeating. Kassab states:
The claimant must also demonstrate that it is “the person or entity in whokm or in
which rightful, legal, or equitable title to, or the right to enforce rights ine, the trade
secret is reposed.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(3-a)l. Similarly,
“[a] plaintiff who has not shown title or some other right to possession of the
property allegedly converted may not maintain a suit in convercsion.” Catania v.
Garage de Le Paix, Inc., 542 S.W.2d 239, 242 (Tex. Civ. App.—rTyler 1976, writ
ref'd n.r.e.). s
Kassab Motion at 58. However, Kassab’s entire theory regarding why these requirements are not
met is because he alleges that Pohl’s trade secrets and other information constitute part of the client
file, which they contend belongs to the client, and must be turned over to the client upon the client’s
demand. See Kassab’s Motion, at 58-59. But even if that were the entire story, that would not
mean that Pohl did not have a right to possession of the client file up until his clients demanded he
turn over the contents of their client file to them. There is no evidence of any such demand that
would limit Pohl’s possessory rights.e However, as laid out in more detail in Pohl’s Response to
the No-Evidence Motions for Sumfmary Judgment, there is evidence demonstrating that Pohl is the
rightful owner of misappropyriated and converted files and information.80
H. Pohl’s AllegeCd Damages are Recoverable
In their finaal effort to prevent Pohl’s claims from being presented to a jury, the Moving
Defendants relyf on inapplicable case law to argue that Pohl is not entitled to recover for the injuries
that theyU inflicted. Relying on standard case law relating to the availability of attorney’s fees
arising during the pursuit of the case at issue, the Moving Defendants argue that Pohl cannot claim
80 Pohl incorporates by reference both the arguments and evidence on the ownership of the information contained in
his Response to the No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment that is filed on the same day as this Response.
35
as damages the harm he suffered in being forced to defend himself from the Moving Defendants’
failed barratry actions.
As the Moving Defendants point out, a plaintiff in a TUTSA action is entitled to “the value of
the plaintiff’s lost profits, the defendant’s actual profits from the use of the seckret, the value a
reasonably prudent investor would have paid for the trade secret, the developmentl costs the defendant
avoided by the misappropriation, and a reasonable royalty.” Sw. Energy Prodt. Co. v. Berry-Helfand,
491 S.W.3d 699, 710–11 (Tex. 2016). In this case, the fees and expensses incurred by Pohl to defend
against the scurrilous actions brought by the Moving Defendants fall squarely within the category of
actual loss damages that are expressly recoverable under the eterms of TUTSA explicitly authorizes
recovery of. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.004(au) (providing that TUTSA damages include
“the actual loss caused by misappropriation”).81 
Furthermore, the only case the Moving Defiendants cite relating to the availability of attorneys’
fees from a prior case as damages has been directly questioned on that point by the Texas Supreme
Court. See Martin-Simon v. Womack, 68 S.W.3d 793 ,797-98 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001,
pet. denied), declined to extend by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. National Development
and Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106, 120 (Tex. 2009). The Moving Defendants’ citation of the case
for the broad proposition that attorneys’ fees in a prior case are not available as damages misstates the
governing precedent. Furthermore, subsequent caselaw has confirmed that attorneys’ fees from prior
litigation may be rceciovered as actual damages in a subsequent suit in certain circumstances. See Dixon
Fin. Services,o Ltd. v. Chang, 325 S.W.3d 668, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).
Finally, Defendants fail to even address the other damages sought by Pohl. One component of
damages is the value a reasonably prudent investor would have paid for the trade secret. Here, the
evidence demonstrates that Defendants believed Pohl’s protected information was worth $6 million.
81 Pohl also seeks other types of damages in relation to his TUTSA claim.
36
Both Mr. Walker and Mr. Ladner testified hearing Favre and Nicholson discuss on multiple occasions
that Pohl’s files, and specifically the identity of Pohl’s clients, were worth $6mm.82 Pohl as owner of
the assets confirms this value.83 Mr. Favre confirmed that Pohl’s information had independent value
and was one of Precisions “most valuable asset” such that the value of the entire company would be
substantially reduced if they were disclosed.84
III. CONCLUSION t
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Otffices of Michael A. Pohl
respectfully request that the Kassab Defendants’ Motion for Traditional Summary Judgment and
the Nicholson Defendants’ Amended Motion for Traditional eSummary Judgment be in all respects
denied. u
82 See Deposition of Scott Walker, at 328:10-16 (testifying about how he had heard Pohl’s client list was worth $6
million), attached as Exhibit D; Deposition of Kirk Ladner, at 314:10–315:18, 343:7-344:17 (recalling that he was
told that the boxes containing Pohl’s information were worth $6 million), attached as Exhibit V.
83 Pohl Declaration ¶ 27, Ex. A.
84 See Exhibit 50 to the Kassab Motion.
37
Dated: September 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650 k
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e
Houston, Texas 77002 l
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250 c
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom
Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERrVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 12th day of September, 2022.
M /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
 Jean C. Frizzell
38
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell e
Bar No. 7484650 C
sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com t
Envelope ID: 68182991 r
Status as of 9/13/2022 8:05 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email sTimestampSubmitted Status
Solace Southwick ssouthwick@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Zandra EFoley zfoley@thompsoncoe.com r 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Andrew J. Sarne asarne@krcl.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.conm 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Kathryn Laflin KLaflin@KRCL.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrrar.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Larry Newsom lnewsom@fkrcl.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Jason M.Ciofalo jason@ciofalolaw.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Todd Taylor titaylor@jandflaw.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Harris Wells fhwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade y lawyerwade@hotmail.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre scott@favrepa.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez C andrea@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Lance Kassab  lance@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
David Kassab a david@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce c nicholas@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson f i 10607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo o 24003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Non-Party Witness Billy Shepherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Deidre Hicks GWS_GROUP@spcounsel.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
E. MarieJamison jamison@wrightclosebarger.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Jessica Z.Barger barger@wrightclosebarger.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT
Katie Budinsky kbudinsky@krcl.com 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM ERROR
D Kassab david@kassab.law 9/12/2022 11:55:09 PM SENT"
23,2022-01-31,RSP,Kassab,Kassab’s response to Pohl MSJ on CC,The Kassab Parties' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry,"Kassab's opposition brief responding to Pohl's Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of Kassab's barratry counterclaims. Filed January 31, 2022, approximately 55 days after Pohl's motion. This is the response in the CC-1 motion chain. Attorneys: Lance Christopher Kassab, David Eric Kassab, and Nicholas R. Pierce of The Kassab Law Firm.",CC-1,N/A,Phase 2,2022-01-31_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-MSJ-on-CC_FILED.pdf,Deny Pohl's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims,"1/31/2022 3:03 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 61310680
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 1/31/2022 3:03 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT
THE KASSAB PARTIES’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MCOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christophter Kassab and Lance
Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”), files
this, their Response to Plaintiff and Counter-Defeendants Michael Pohl and Law
Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC’s Motion for Suummary Judgment on Defendants’
Counterclaims, and would respectfully show the following.
SUaMMARY
The Motion filed by Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
(“Pohl”) should be denied. Res jeudicata does not apply because facts have changed
and the relationship betweefn the parties has been altered. Specifically, Pohl sued
Kassab arising from the same transaction where the barratry occurred, and the
clients assigned the barratry claims to Kassab to be brought as counterclaims in
this action, thuis allowing Section 16.069 to revive the otherwise time-barred
barratry cloaims. Section 16.069 plainly applies because Pohl’s claims against
Kassab and the barratry counterclaims arise from the same transaction in which
Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) solicited clients for Pohl and obtained
the alleged confidential information that Kassab is alleged to have obtained. The
clients’ assignments of their barratry counterclaims against Pohl to Kassab are not
invalid, either as a matter of law or for purported non-compliance with the
Disciplinary Rules. Regardless, the law is clear that technical non-compliance with
the Disciplinary Rules is insufficient to void otherwise valid contracts like the
Assignments. k
BACKGROUND C
On October 8, 2014, Scott Walker, Kirk Ladner, and their company Precision
sued Pohl and his law firm for breach of contract and fraiud, among other claims
(“the Federal Court Case”). See Walker v. Williamson, No. 1:14cv381-KS-JCG, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61185, at *5-6 (S.D. Miss. May 9, 2016). In the Federal Court
Case, Walker, Ladner and Precision (“the Runners”) alleged that Pohl contracted
with them to provide “public relations anld marketing services” to potential clients
impacted by the Deepwater HorizonM oil spill in exchange for “a percentage of the
attorney fees for the claims obtained from their efforts, along with expenses and a
flat fee.” Id. at *6-7. “There iis evidence that the [Runners] contacted people and
businesses in Mississippi to determine if they might have a claim against BP,
encouraged those peoople to retain Pohl as their attorney, and were paid over $5
million in ‘barratrly pass-through money’ for their services.” Kassab v. Pohl, 612
S.W.3d 571, 57i4 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied).
The Runners also alleged that they contracted with Pohl “to provide
marketing and public relations services in connection with claims for automobile
rollover accidents.” Walker v. Williamson, No. 1:14-CV-381-KS-MTP, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 59031, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 18, 2017). Among those solicited were two
families from Louisiana and Arkansas, who presented evidence that they were
illegally and unethically solicited by the Runners to hire Pohl. See Cheatham v.
Pohl, No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 649, at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Jan. 27, 2022, no pet.). They presented evidence that kPohl and his
associating attorney “were aware of the solicitation of potentiaCl clients and that
[Walker] had phone conversations with Pohl and [his associating counsel] from
inside potential clients’ hospital rooms to discuss the attorniey ‘marketing.’” Id.
The Runners eventually sued Pohl because they “procured thousands of
viable BP claims” and “approximately sixty motor vehicle accident cases” for Pohl
but that Pohl “did noy pay any of the agreed share of his fees” or all expenses
incurred. Walker v. Williamson, No. 1:14l-cv-381-KS-JCG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
76488, at *5, 24 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 1, 20M16).
During discovery in the Federal Court Case, Pohl discovered that the
Runners allegedly “disclosedi confidential and proprietary information to third
parties without authorization” and proposed “the ‘sale’ of all of [his] accumulated
work product to thirod parties” while working for him.1 Pohl testifies that the
Runners “undertolok to convert, misappropriate for themselves and/or market to
third parties iclaimant files and other information and materials” that allegedly
belonged to Pohl2 – including “marketing information and other trade secrets”3 –
1 Exhibit 1, Pohl’s June 19, 2018 Affidavit, at ¶ 18.
2 Exhibit 1, at ¶ 28.
3 Exhibit 1, at ¶ 28.
and then the new owner of Precision, Scott Favre, allegedly “sold those items and
the information” to Kassab.4
As a result, Pohl “asserted multiple claims against” the Runners in the
Federal Court Case based on their alleged “fraudulent and bad faith coknduct.”5 Pohl
did not assert any claims against Kassab in the Federal Court CasCe, even though he
testified under oath that he knew Kassab allegedly was part of the “team of thieves”
who broke into Pohl’s office in 2014 and stole his confiidential information and
purported trade secrets.6 Pohl eventually settled his claims against the Runners,
and the Federal Court Case was dismissed with prejudice on April 24, 2017.7
After hearing about Pohl’s client-solicitation activities, Kassab began
researching the matter and met with Favlre and his counsel, Tina Nicholson. Pohl,
612 S.W.3d at 574. Favre informedM Kassab that, when he bought Precision, he
acquired files related to Pohl and Favre transferred that information to Kassab. Id.
Kassab prepared advertisemenit letters approved by the State Bar of Texas and sent
it to the people who had been illegally solicited by Pohl, informing them that they
may have potential obarratry claims against Pohl. Id. at 575. “Hundreds of
Mississippi residenlts responded to Kassab’s advertisement letter”, “[m]ore than 400
signed represientation contracts with Kassab’s firm to pursue barratry claims
4 Exhibit 1, at ¶ 29.
5 Exhibit 1, at ¶ 19; Exhibit 2, Pohl’s Amended Counterclaim.
6 Exhibit 3, May 15, 2018 Deposition of Michael Pohl, pp. 85-93.
7 Exhibit 4, April 21, 2017 Judgment.
against Pohl”, and “Kassab filed four barratry suits against Pohl in Harris County
district courts, each with multiple named plaintiffs.” Id.
One of those lawsuits – the Berry case – settled for a confidential amount.8
Another of those lawsuits – the Cheatham case – was wrongly kdismissed on
summary judgment in favor of Pohl by the trial court and reversCed and remanded.
See Cheatham, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 649, at *34. The two other cases – Brumfield
and Gandy – were dismissed on summary judgment soliely based on limitations
grounds. See Brumfield v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2021, pet. denied); Gandy v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied).
Meanwhile, Pohl filed this litigatlion against Kassab, Favre, Nicholson,
Precision, and others, for conversMion, misappropriation of trade secrets and
conspiracy.9 Here, Pohl rehashes his allegations from the Federal Court Case,
claiming that “Precision gaiined access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietary
information and property, including trade secret materials” and “work product” and
“illegally misapproprioated” this information and then allegedly “secretly sold Pohl’s
confidential informlation to Kassab”10 who then “solicited clients/prospective clients
[of Pohl’s] to aict as Plaintiffs . . . to bring cases against Pohl for alleged barratry and
other claims.”11
8 Exhibit 5, Declaration of Lance Kassab, at ¶ 5.
9 See Pohl’s First Amended Petition (“Petition”),
10 Petition, at ¶¶ 20-21.
11 Petition, at ¶ 29.
Seeing Pohl’s retaliatory suit as a means to potentially revive the barratry
claims dismissed on limitations in Brumfield and Gandy, Kassab and his clients
executed 242 Limited Assignments (“the Assignments”).12 The Assignments
assigned only the clients’ barratry claims against Pohl to Kassab, in kconsideration
of Kassab’s continued work on the claims.13 Importantly, howeveCr, Kassab and the
clients agreed that, in the event there was a recovery on the assigned barratry
claims against Pohl, Kassab would only deduct his 40% conitingency fee interest and
the remaining 60% of the recovery would go to the clients.14
Accordingly, within 30 days of his answer being due, Kassab filed his third
amended counterclaim, asserting 242 barratry claims against Pohl pursuant to the
Assignments. See Kassab 3rd Am. Countelrclaim at 11. Kassab affirmatively pled
Section 16.069 of the Texas Civil PraMctice & Remedies Code, which provides that a
counterclaim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the basis of
an action may be brought evein if it would be barred by limitations. Id. Kassab also
provided a multi-page statement of facts, explaining how the barratry claims arise
out of the same transoaction and occurrence as Pohl’s claims against Kassab. Id. at
4-11. Finally, Kalssab asserted several affirmative defenses, including unclean
hands, illegaliity, and in pari delicto. Id. at 3.
12 Kassab Declaration, at ¶ 11.
13 Kassab Declaration, at ¶ 11; Motion, at Exhibit J (example Assignments).
14 Kassab Declaration, at ¶ 11.
Pohl now moves for traditional summary judgment on the barratry
counterclaims. For the reasons stated herein, summary judgment should be denied.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
In a traditional summary judgment motion, the movant has tkhe burden to
show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the Ctrial court should
grant judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); KP
MG Peat Marwick v.
Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tiex. 1999). A defendant
moving for traditional summary judgment must negate at least one essential
element of each of the plaintiff's causes of action or establish each element of an
affirmative defense. Sci. Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex.
1997). The Court must (1) take as true all levidence favorable to the nonmovant and
(2) indulge every reasonable inferencMe and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's
favor. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005).
ARiGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
Pohl makes three arguments to support his request for dismissal of the
barratry counterclaimos: (1) res judicata; (2) limitations; and (3) the Assignments are
invalid as a mattler of law, based on public policy and because they purportedly
violate the Disiciplinary Rules. Each argument will be addressed, but none warrant
summary judgment.
A. Res judicata does not apply because facts have changed
and the relationship between the parties has been
altered.
The Texas Supreme Court has made clear that “a judgment in one suit will
not operate as res judicata to a subsequent suit on the same questionk between the
same parties where, in the interval, the facts have changed, oCr new facts have
occurred which may alter the legal rights or relations of the parties.” Marino v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 787 S.W.2d 948, 949-i50 (Tex. 1990). In other
words, “res judicata is not a defense in a subsequent action if there has been a
change in the material facts” because “no judgment can affect subsequently arising
rights and duties.” Id. Simply put, “[e]stoppel by judgment extends only to facts in
issue as they existed at the time the judgmlent was rendered[.]” Lubbock v. Stubbs,
327 S.W.2d 411, 414 (1959). M
Even if the barratry claims were barred by the statute of limitations as the
prior judgments in Brumfield iand Gandy concluded, there was a change in material
facts when Pohl sued Kassab for claims arising from the same transaction that the
barratry occurred, anod the barratry claims were assigned to Kassab thereby giving
Kassab the abilityl to revive the once-barred claims pursuant to Section 16.069. In
other words, tihe prior judgments based on limitations are not res judicata on the
barratry counterclaims because Section 16.069 was not an available defense to the
clients in the prior litigation. See Marino, 787 S.W.2d at 950 (res judicata did not
bar insured’s subsequent suit for bad faith because claim was not available when
the first judgment was entered). Accordingly, res judicata does not apply.15
B. The barratry counterclaims are not barred by
limitations.
Even if the barratry claims were at one time barred by limietations, Section
16.069 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code revived those claims when Kassab
brought them as counterclaims to Pohl’s action. Section 16.06t9 section provides:
(a) If a counterclaim or cross claim arises out of the same
transaction or occurrence that is the basis of an action, a party
to the action may file the counterclaeim or cross claim even
though as a separate action it would be barred by limitation on
the date the party’s answer is requiured.
(b) The counterclaim or cross claim must be filed not later than the
30th day after the date on whlich the party’s answer is required.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.06M9. Pohl contends that Section 16.069 does not
apply here because (1) the barratry counterclaims “do not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence” ias Pohl’s claims; (2) Kassab did not assert the
counterclaims within the 30-day deadline; and (3) the purpose of the statute would
be frustrated. Mot. ato 9-14. All three arguments fail.
15 Res judicata also does not apply because, according to Pohl, the barratry claims that were
dismissed “do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as Pohl’s claims.” Motion, at 9. If
that is true, then Pohl is not entitled to summary judgment on res judicata because that doctrine
only works to bar subsequent claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. See Barr v.
Resolution Trust Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex. 1992) (“a final judgment
on an action extinguishes the right to bring suit on the transaction, or series of connected
transactions, out of which the action arose.”).
1. Both Pohl’s claims and Kassab’s counterclaims
arise out of the same transaction or occurrence:
Pohl’s engagement of Precision to “liaise” with
prospective clients.
Texas courts apply “a logical relationship test to determine whether
counterclaims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.” Comemint Technical
Servs., Inc. v. Quickel, 314 S.W.3d 646, 653 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2010,
no pet.). Pohl argues that the facts relevant to the barratry ctounterclaims are “in no
way relevant to Pohl’s claims of conversion and theft of trade secrets.” Mot. at 9.
But the facts for both claims need only arise frome the same “transaction,” which
courts define as a “flexible [and] comprehenduing a series of many occurrences
logically related to one another.” Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.—
Tyler 2008, no pet.). The facts underlyinag Pohl’s conversion and theft of trade secret
claims are logically related to the same facts underlying the barratry counterclaims.
A comparison of the pleadings deemonstrates this point.
In his petition, Pohl aflleges that he “engaged Precision for a period of time to
provide public relations services, to gather and preserve evidence, and to screen and
liaise with Pohl’s clients/prospective clients” and that, during this engagement,
“Precision gaineid access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietary information and
property, inocluding trade secret materials, that included the identities of Pohl’s
clients/prospective clients, as well as their detailed contact information.” Pohl Am.
Pet. at ¶ 20. Pohl alleges that Precession and its subsequent owner Farve “secretly
sold Pohl’s stolen and confidential information” to Kassab, which is the basis of
Pohl’s theft and trade secret claims. Id. at ¶ 21.
10
In his counterclaim, Kassab alleges that Pohl’s engagement of Precision was
not to provide “public relations services” but was to illegally and unethically solicit
clients in violation of the laws and rules governing barratry. See Kassab 3rd Am.
Ans. and Counterclaim at 4-5. Kassab alleges that Pohl did not hirek Precision to
“liaise” with clients, but to unethically solicit them to retain PoChl. Id. at 5-6. The
barratry counterclaims are based on 242 Assignments that Kassab received from
the clients who were solicited by Precision, at Pohl’s instruiction, and are part of the
group of clients who own the information that Pohl alleges Kassab misappropriated.
Id. at 10-11.
Pohl’s claims against Kassab and Kassab’s counterclaims against Pohl both
arise from the relationship between Polhl and Precision. The facts relevant to
determining whether Precision gainMed access to Pohl’s confidential information
while “liaising” with prospective clients are also relevant to determining whether
the “liaising” conducted by Priecision – at Pohl’s direction – amounted to unlawful
barratry. Accordingly, the logical relationship test is satisfied. See Quickel, 314
S.W.3d at 653 (breaoch of contract claim and defamation claim met the logical
relationship test elven though one “span[ed] a longer time period and involve[d]
broader issuesi” because they both arose “from the breakdown of the employment
relationship between” the two parties).
Pohl cites several cases to argue that courts have refused to apply Section
16.069 “in cases involving much more related claims than the counterclaims Kassab
asserts.” Mot. at 10. But the cases that Pohl cites are clearly distinguishable.
11
Pohl first relies on Freeman v. Cherokee Water Co., 11 S.W.3d 480 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. denied). In Freeman, the Cherokee Water Company
brought a declaratory judgment action against the Freemans to interpret one
provision in a deed, pertaining to a grant of fishing rights. Id. at 483. Ikn response to
that action, the Freemans filed a counterclaim to set aside the enCtire deed based on
an alleged fraudulent execution of the deed. Id. at 483. The court concluded that the
Freemans’ counterclaim for fraud was not logically relaited to Cherokee’s action
because it “in no way relate[d] to the fishing rights [provision], or any other
interpretation of the deed.” Id.
Freeman has no application here. Pohl’s claims and Kassab’s counterclaims
are logically related, particularly becausel both claims depend on the manner in
which Precision worked for Pohl Mto procure client contact information. Pohl
contends that during the relationship, Precision obtained client information and
sold it to Kassab, while Kaissab contends that during that same relationship
Precision obtained the clients giving rise to the purportedly confidential information
illegally. Kassab’s couonterclaims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence –
the work providedl by Precision “marketing group” to acquire clients and client
information – iwhich is also the basis for Pohl’s action.
Pohl’s reliance on T&C Constr., Ltd. v. Brown Mech. Servs., No. 01-19-00041-
CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 5067 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 9, 2020, no
pet.) is also mistaken. The court in T&C Constriction declined to apply Section
16.069 to save an otherwise barred unjust enrichment claim because it related not
12
to the transaction underlying the breach of contract claim brought by the plaintiff,
but to “payments made for a separate job” relating to separate contract. Id. at
*16. Here, Kassab’s counterclaims for barratry and Pohl’s claim for theft of trade
secrets all arise from the same transaction or occurrence: Precision’s kmarketing to
to acquire clients and secure client information. It is immateriaCl that the claims
may also require a showing of different facts because only “some of the facts
surrounding the causes of action [need] arise from thie same transaction or
occurrence.” Encore Enters., Inc. v. Borderplex Realty Tr., 583 S.W.3d 713, 722 (Tex.
App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.) (emphasis added).
Pohl argues that whether he solicited the clients in 2012 to 2014 has no
bearing on Kassab’s alleged misconduct inl 2016. Mot. at 11. But again, claims can
arise from the same transaction evenM if they involve “a series of many occurrences”
so long as they are “logically related to one another.” Wells, 261 S.W.3d at 281. That
is the case here. Pohl compilains that Kassab allegedly purchased confidential
information acquired by Precision while it was performing client acquisition
services, thus giving orise to Pohl’s claim for misappropriation. Kassab complains
that the client acqluisition performed by Precision was illegal and unethical, thus
giving rise to tihe barratry counterclaims. Simply put, Kassab’s alleged purchase of
client information from Precision (which is contested) derived out of the client
acquisition from Precision. Both claims are logically related to one another,
regardless of the time that elapsed between occurrences. See Rahlek, Ltd. v. Wells,
587 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2019, pet. denied) (concluding declaratory
13
judgment action to construe 2006 deed was logically related to unjust enrichment
counterclaim arising out of royalty payments made pursuant to the deed in 2013).
Accordingly, Section 16.069(a) is satisfied, and the statute of limitations on
the barratry counterclaims is tolled once Kassab complied with sectionk (b) by filing
the counterclaims not later than the 30th day after the date on Cwhich his answer
was due.
2. Kassab asserted valid and suifficiently pled
counterclaims within the 30-day deadline.
Pohl does not dispute that Kassab filed his baerratry counterclaims within the
30-day deadline. Mot. at 11. Instead, Pohl arugues that the counterclaims were
insufficiently alleged to “satisfy the requirements of the statute” because they did
not provide “any indication of who assiganed the claims” or provide “fair notice of the
facts giving rise to the claims[.]” Mot. at 11. This argument fails as well.
Pohl relies on Rogers v. eVeigel Inter Vivos Tr. No. 2, 162 S.W.3d 281 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 2005, pet. defnied) to argue that Kassab’s pleadings were deficient.
Mot. at 11-12. Notably, Pohl does so without discussing the facts of Rogers. Pohl
fails to do so because Rogers is easily distinguishable.
Rogers wais an estate dispute. 162 S.W.3d at 285. The plaintiff, ANB, sued to
be removedo as trustee of the decedent’s estate. Id. The grandchildren of the
decedent, R.W., answered and asserted the following “averment” in their “answer”
as a purported counterclaim for damages:
[R.W.] denies that ANB should be removed as Trustee at this time, in
that there is a question as to acts of the Trustee under Ardella's
Intervivos Trust No. 2 and under the estate of Charles[.]
14
Id. at 289-290 (cleaned up). The Rogers court looked to Rule 47 and concluded that
the averment was insufficient to assert a counterclaim, reasoning:
There is no general prayer for relief, no allegation that the damages
were within the trial court's jurisdictional limits, and no description of
any particular cause of action. All [the defendant] did was deny [the
plaintiff’s] allegation that it should be allowed to resign as trustee.
And, he based that denial upon the mere suggestion thatt there were
“questions” about [the plaintiff’s] “acts.” What the “quesitions” or “acts”
were, what rights or interests of [the defendant], if asnty, were involved,
or the injury, if any, supposedly suffered by [the dDefiendant] due to the
unspecified acts went unmentioned. 
While Texas follows the theory of “notice pleadings,” … the concept
still requires the litigant to provide fair notice of the claims involved to
the accused. [citation omitted]. And, to be fair, the allegations must be
sufficient to inform a reasonably competent attorney of the nature and
basic issues of the controversy and of the potentially relevant evidence.
[citation omitted]. Merely stating tlhat ANB should not be allowed to
resign because of unspecified “quaestions” created by unspecified “acts”
hardly falls within that ambit.
Id. at 289.
The Rogers court also nioted that, after a discovery dispute arose relating to
the allegations in R.W.’s answer, R.W.’s counsel stated to the trial court that R.W.
“filed nothing seekingo affirmative relief from [ANB]” and “there is no affirmative
relief sought froma l [ANB].” Id. “Given the oblique nature of the allegations relied
upon by R.W.f,i their failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule 47, and R.W.’s own
representation to the trial court made in effort to defeat discovery, [the Rogers court
was] unable to say that the original answers of R.W. included counterclaims.” Id. at
289-290.
15
Rogers does not apply here. Unlike R.W., Kassab has not agreed that he is
not seeking affirmative relief. To the contrary, Kassab has plainly asserted a
counterclaim against Pohl:
See Kassab 3rd Am. Ans. and Counterclaim aBt 1. And unlike the pleading filed by
R.W., Kassab contained an allegation ythat the damages were within the
jurisdictional limitation of the Court:
Id. at 2. Moreover, unlpike R.W., Kassab included a specific cause of action against
Pohl: “a counterclaim for civil barratry.” Id. at 11. And unlike the single sentence
asserted by R.Wi., Kassab’s counterclaim is supported by seven pages of facts
discussing oconduct committed by Pohl which amounted to barratry.16 Id. at 4-11.
Finally, unlike R.W., Kassab asserted a prayer for affirmative relief:
16 For this reason, Pohl’s contention that Kassab’s counterclaim is “devoid of any of the facts giving
rise to the claims” is false, as with most of his factual assertions. Mot. at 12.
16
Id. at 13. Kassab’s counterclaim was more than suffiscient “to provide fair notice of
the claims involved to the accused.” Rogers, 162 S.rW.3d at 289.
In essence, Pohl’s argument is that Kassab’s counterclaim is insufficient to
provide fair notice because Kassab did notl specifically identify who the assignors of
the claims were. Mot. at 12. But there is no requirement under Rule 47 for an
assignee to state the identity of the assignor; rather, the claimant need only provide
“a short statement of the cauise of action sufficient to give fair notice of the claim
involved.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 47(a) (emphasis added). Nor does Rule 45 – the rule
stating what pleadingos must include – require the assignee to identify the assignor.
See TEX. R. CIV. Pa.l 45(b) (requiring only that the pleading “consist of a statement in
plain and conf icise language of the plaintiff’s cause of action or the defendant’s
grounds of defense.”). Rather, “Texas follows a ‘fair notice’ standard for pleading, in
which courts assess the sufficiency of pleadings by determining whether an
opposing party can ascertain from the pleading the nature, basic issues, and the
type of evidence that might be relevant to the controversy.” Low v. Henry, 221
17
S.W.3d 609, 612 (Tex. 2007). Kassab’s pleading met that fair notice standard, and
any details about the Assignments could be obtained by Pohl through discovery,
which he did.17
3. Pohl’s policy arguments about why Skection
16.069 should not apply here fail. e
Pohl next resorts to policy, arguing that the “object and purpose” of Section
16.069 would be frustrated if it is applied here. Mot. at t12-14. This last-resort
argument is also unavailing.
Pohl begins by relying on Holman St. Baptist eChurch v. Jefferson, 317 S.W.3d
540, 545 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 20u10, pet. denied) and Ball v. SBC
Communs., Inc., No. 04-02-00702-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5286 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio June 25, 2003, pet. denied) tao argue that “courts have limited [Section
16.069’s] reach, such as ruling it does not revive claims made in response to
declarations not requesting aeffirmative relief.” Mot. at 13. But Ball has no
application here because Pofhl is not seeking a declaration which does not request
affirmative relief, and Holman contradicts Pohl’s argument.
The court in Ball concluded that Section 16.069 “does not revive or save
claims brought biy a party as counterclaims in a suit for declaratory judgment which
alleges thaot such claims are absolutely barred by limitations as a matter of law.”
2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5286 at *16. The court held that to conclude otherwise would
lead to an “unjust and unreasonable” result not intended by the legislature because
it would allow otherwise barred claims to be revived in an action brought to declare
17 Moreover, Pohl could have obtained a hearing on his special exceptions if he actually believed that
Kassab’s pleadings were deficient. He failed to do so.
18
the claims barred by limitations. Id. at *11-13. “Were [the court] to hold that section
16.069 revives claims which are absolutely barred by limitations as a matter of law,
the result would be that a litigant would never be able to seek a declaratory
judgment based on limitations because a defendant could always use skection 16.069
to defeat such a suit.” Id. at *11. C
Holman relied on Ball to state that one party’s “mere seeking of a declaration
on limitations regarding his purported debt to [the otheir party] did not trigger
section 16.069(a).” 317 S.W.3d at 545. Importantly, however, the Holman court
recognized that if, “in addition to the declaration on limitations, [the party] also
sought affirmative relief”, than Section 16.069 would apply. Id. at 546. This is
because “[c]ourts have interpreted sectionl 16.069 as permitting a party’s otherwise
time-barred counterclaims or cross clMaims only when the opposing party has sought
‘affirmative relief,’ rather than just a declaration on a dispute between the parties.”
Id. at 545. The Holman courti concluded “the request for return of the stock [made
by the plaintiff] was a request for affirmative relief triggering section 16.069(a).” Id.
at 546. o
Ball is distilnguishable because this is not a suit brought by Pohl solely to
obtain a declairation that the assigned barratry claims are barred by limitations. In
fact, Pohl does not seek declaratory relief at all. Rather, just as in Holman, Pohl
seeks affirmative relief against Kassab for purported conversion and theft of trade
secrets arising out of the documents that evidence Pohl’s illegal barratry scheme.
19
Accordingly, Section 16.069 applies, and Pohl is not entitled to summary judgment
on limitations. See Holman, 317 S.W.3d at 545.
C. The Assignments are not invalid, do not violate public
policy or the Disciplinary Rules, and should be enforced.
Pohl’s last argument again resorts to public policy and asks theis Court to void
the Assignments because they are purportedly in “violation of ethical rules.” Mot. at
14. Although Pohl’s sudden regard for ethics is refreshing, Ttexas law is clear that a
purported violation of an ethical rule does not void an otherwise valid contract. And
Pohl’s reliance on cases prohibiting assignments eof claims under the DTPA is
unavailing because this is not a DTPA case. Moure fundamentally, Pohl has argued
that the Assignments are valid, and he should be estopped from taking a contrary
position in this case. We will address thaat point first.
1. Pohl should be estopped from arguing that the
Assignments are invalid.
Although Pohl arguesi that the Assignments are invalid here, he has
simultaneously argued to the Texas Supreme Court that the Assignments are valid.
Specifically, Pohl reqouested the Texas Supreme Court to dismiss the appeals filed
by the assignee cllients in Brumfield and Gandy because the barratry claims were
assigned to Kiassab.18 Pohl argued that, “[o]n its face, the documents [the
assignments] assign ‘any and all’ barratry claims [so] the Assignor retains no
justiciable interest in the claims.”19 Pohl should be estopped from playing “fast and
18 Exhibit 5-A, Brumfield Motion to Dismiss; Exhibit 5-B, Gandy Motion to Dismiss.
19 Exhibit 5-A, Brumfield Motion to Dismiss, at 5; Exhibit 5-B, Gandy Motion to Dismiss, at 5.
20
loose” with the judicial system by taking these two wholly inconsistent and contrary
positions. See Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642, 643 (Tex.
2009) (stating that a litigant is estopped from taking inconsistent positions to obtain
an unfair advantage). k
2. The Assignments are not invalid as a mattCer of law.
A civil barratry claim under Section 82.0651(a) brought by a client is a
“contract-based” claim. See Cheatham, 2022 Tex. Appi. LEXIS 649, at *23.
Generally, claims sounding in contract are assignable, regardless of whether they
are created by statute. See Lindsay ex. rel. Lindsay v. South San Antonio Indep.
Sch. Dist., 983 S.W.2d 778, 779-80 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (claim for
statutory benefits was assignable becausel although the “cause of action exists by
virtue of statutory law, it bears signiMficant resemblance to a common law action for
breach of contract.”). Civil barratry claims under Section 82.0651(c) sound in tort.
Nguyen v. Watts, 605 S.W.3di 761, 781 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet.
denied). Generally, tort claims are also assignable. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.
Gandy, 925 S.W.2d 6o96, 707 (Tex. 1996). There are two exceptions to assignability
of claims that warlrant discussion, but neither applies here.
The firsit exception is that “an assignment of a legal malpractice action
arising from litigation is invalid.” Zuniga, Jr. v. Groce, Locke & Hebdon, 878 S.W.2d
313, 318 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1994, writ ref'd). However, Pohl has argued – and
the court of appeals has agreed – that a civil barratry claim “is not malpractice that
is committed in the prosecution or defense of a claim” resulting from litigation.
21
Brumfield, 634 S.W.3d at 206. In fact, the court in Brumfield rejected as
“misplaced” the clients’ effort to “analogize legal-malpractice claims to civil-barratry
claims … because any alleged improper solicitation would have occurred before the
formation of the attorney-client relationship[.]” Id. at 205 n. 34. Acckordingly, the
rule prohibiting assignments of legal malpractice claims has noC application here.
See id. (declining to extend the Hughes tolling rule – which tolls limitations on
claims against the attorney when he commits malpractiice in the prosecution or
defense of a claim that results in litigation – to civil barratry claims).
The second exception – which is principally relied on by Pohl20 – is that
“DTPA claims generally cannot be assigned by an aggrieved consumer to someone
else.” PPG Indus. v. JMB/Houston Ctrs. Lltd. P'ship, 146 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex. 2004).
That exception does not apply here foMr the simple fact that a civil barratry claim is
not a DTPA claim. In fact, in his briefing filed with the Texas Supreme Court in
Brumfield and Gandy, Pohli explicitly stated that “civil barratry claims are
different” than DTPA claims.21 Nonetheless, Pohl again attempts to play loose with
contrary arguments boy analogizing barratry claims to DTPA claims and asserting
that the “analysisl” of PPG “applies to the assignability of barratry claims in this
case.” Mot. at 1i6. Pohl’s reliance on PPG is mistaken for at least two reasons.
First, the court in PPG noted that its decision did “not prohibit equitable
assignments, such as a contingent-fee interest assigned to a consumer’s attorney.”
20 Mot. at 15-17.
21 Exhibit 5-C, Brumfield Response, at 22; Exhibit 5-D, Gandy Response, at 22.
22
146 S.W.3d at 91-92. The Assignments in this case were just that; equitable
assignments from Kassab’s clients to Kassab in exchange for continuing work that
Kassab would perform on the claims.22 The assignments were effectuated in an
attempt to salvage the clients’ barratry claims, with the intention okf paying any
proceeds from the assigned claims back to the clients in proportCion to the original
contingency fee agreement should Kassab obtain any recovery.23 The assignments
were equitable in nature, created to benefit the clients whoi were unknowing victims
of barratry committed by Pohl.24
Second, the concerns that the PPG court had with DTPA assignments are not
present here. The court noted that it had “prohibited assignments that may skew
the trial process, confuse or mislead thel jury, promote collusion among nominal
adversaries, or misdirect damages froMm more culpable to less culpable defendants.”
146 S.W.3d at 90. Those issues are not present in this case, under these unique
circumstances. Kassab and hiis clients who assigned the claims are not adversaries,
they are aligned. And the damages will not be misdirected from the more culpable
to less capable partieos, but will remain directed to the most culpable party: Pohl.
Finally, no jury colnfusion will occur. The PPG court noted that, because the DTPA
permits mentail anguish and exemplary damages, “[j]urors are bound to experience
some confusion in assessing mental anguish of a consumer, or punitive damages
22 Kassab Declaration, at ¶ 11.
23 Kassab Declaration, at ¶ 11.
24 Kassab Declaration, at ¶ 11; Given this evidence, Pohl’s contention that “[l]awyers like Kassab are
in a position to take advantage of clients by purchasing assignments far below their potential value
given statutory penalties” is unsupported and without merit.
23
based on the situation and sensibilities of the parties when the affected consumer is
not a party.” Id. Unlike the DTPA, the civil barratry statute does not provide for
mental anguish or punitive damages; it permits only actual damages, attorney’s
fees, disgorgement, and civil penalties. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 82.0651(bk), (d). These
remedies may be awarded regardless of the “situation and seCnsibilities” of the
solicited client.
Therefore, the reasoning of PPG is inapplicable to thie Assignments here, and
they are presumptively valid and should be enforced.
3. The Assignments do not violate public policy,
nor were they procuured in violation of the
ethical rules; regardless, the Assignments
cannot be voided on those grounds.
Suddenly struck by a sense of eathical responsibility which has been lacking
from Pohl’s moral compass for at least two decades,25 Pohl argues that the
Assignments are invalid becausee Kassab allegedly obtained them in violation of the
ethical rules. Mot. at 17. Of fcourse, Pohl cites no evidence for this proposition; only
argument of counsel. See Mot. at 17-19. While words from Pohl’s counsel may carry
great weight within the confines of their own office, it is well-settled that in the
court of law “coiunsel’s statements are not evidence.” Ex parte Ubadimma, 623
S.W.3d 530o, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). Regardless, Pohl’s
argument not only lacks evidentiary support, but legal support as well.
25 Pohl indisputably began committing barratry shortly after the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon when
he paid Precision and its members “over $5 million in ‘barratry pass-through money’ for their
services” which included “contact[ing] people and businesses in Mississippi to determine if they
might have a claim against BP [and] encourage[ing] those people to retain Pohl as their attorney[.]”
Pohl, 612 S.W.3d at 574. Later, in 2014, Pohl illegally and unethically solicited two families who lost
loved ones. See Cheatham, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 649, at *3.
24
Pohl argues that the Assignments purportedly violated Rule 1.08(h) because
they “concern causes of action and the subject matter of litigation where Kassab
represented those clients.” Mot. at 19. However, Rule 1.08(h) specifically allows a
lawyer to “acquire a lien granted by law to secure the lawyer’s fee ork expenses[.]”
TEX. R. PROF’L COND. 1.08(h). The Assignments do not violate RuCle 1.08(h) because
they were effectuated to secure a lien in Kassab’s existing fee, and help Kassab
recover that fee, with the remainder from any recovery baised on the Assignments
going back to the clients.26
But even if the Assignments are noncompliant under sine unknown
technicality with Rule 1.08(h), that alone is insufficient to void them. This is
demonstrated by Wright v. Sydow – a clase cited by Pohl27 – which held that a
settlement agreement would be enforMced even if it were executed in violation of Rule
1.08 because a purported violation of the disciplinary rules does not void an
otherwise valid contract. See 1i73 S.W.3d 534, 549 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2004, pet. denied) (“We decline to use Disciplinary Rule 1.08 to void an otherwise
valid settlement agreoement entered into at arm’s length”). The Fourteenth Court of
Appeals very recenltly reiterated this holding and concluded that “an agreement is
not illegal, voiid, or unenforceable as against public policy when the agreement
contravenes [a Disciplinary Rule].” M.A. Mills, P.C. v. Kotts, No. 14-20-00395-CV,
2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 359, at *17 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 20, 2022,
no pet.). Therefore, even if the Assignments are unethical and in violation of Rule
26 Kassab Declaration, at ¶ 11.
27 See Mot. at 18.
25
1.08 (and they are not), the Court cannot void them. See id. at *21 (concluding that
an oral agreement between attorneys “was not illegal, void, and unenforceable
because it contravened Rule 1.08(a).”).
Pohl also contends that the Assignments should be declared invkalid based on
“equitable considerations” because they “injury the public good.C” Mot. at 18. But
“one who comes seeking equity must come with clean hands.” Omohundro v.
Matthews, 341 S.W.2d 401, 410 (1960). Pohl has the fiilthiest of hands, having
committed felony barratry28 by illegally and unethically soliciting the clients who
assigned their claims. See Pohl, 612 S.W.3d at 574 (noting the “evidence” that
Precision and its members were hired by Pohl to solicit clients and “paid over $5
million in ‘barratry pass-through money’ lfor their services.”). It would not “injure
the public good” to allow clients whosMe barratry claims may otherwise be barred by
limitations to assert those claims through an assignment to their attorney if it
means that the claims would ibe salvaged, and the clients could obtain a relief for
Pohl’s unethical conduct. To the contrary, voiding the Assignments only injures the
unknowing clients aond the public, because it rewards attorneys like Pohl who
knowingly commilt felony barratry and then breach their fiduciary duty of full
disclosure by cioncealing the crime so that limitations may expire.
The Court should not invalidate the Assignments, it should enforce them so
that Pohl may finally be held accountable for his reprehensible actions that the
Legislature has mandated courts like this one to protect against. See TEX. GOV’T
CODE § 82.0651(e) (providing for liberal construction and application of the civil
28 See TEX. PEN. CODE § 38.12.
26
barratry statute “to protect those in need of legal services against unethical,
unlawful solicitation and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure
that protection.”).
CONCLUSION & PRAYER k
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny MichaelC A. Pohl and Law
Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’
Counterclaims. i
Respectfully submitted,
THE KASSAB LAW FIRM
__________________________
lLANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB
a Texas State Bar No. 00794070
M lance@kassab.law
 DAVID ERIC KASSAB
Texas State Bar No. 24071351
e david@kassab.law
i NICHOLAS R. PIERCE
f Texas State Bar No. 24098263
nicholas@kassab.law
1214 Elgin Street
o Houston, Texas 77004
Telephone: 713-522-7400
l Facsimile: 713-522-7410
i E-Service: eserve@kassab.law
o ATTORNEYS FOR KASSAB PARTIES
27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this date, January 31, 2022, I electronically filed this
document with the Clerk of the Court using the eFile.TXCourts.gov electronic filing
system which will send notification of such filing to all parties or counsel of record.
______________________e_
DAVID ERIC KASSAB C
28
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
David Kassab
Bar No. 24071351
david@kassab.law r
Envelope ID: 61310680
Status as of 1/31/2022 3:07 PM CST
Case Contacts r i
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com s1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com g1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre scott@favrepa.com u 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law  1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.comy 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbarar.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Larry Newsom lnewsom@krcl.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Jason M.Ciofalo jason@cioofalolaw.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Andrew J. Sarne asafrne@krcl.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Kathryn Laflin KLaflin@KRCL.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10607900pjefferson@mdjwlaw.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo 24003C021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Kevin Graham Cain 24a01l2371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Solace Southwicko ssouthwick@reynoldsfrizzell.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
E. MarieJamisUon jamison@wrightclosebarger.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Jessica Z.Barger barger@wrightclosebarger.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
David R.Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT
Felicia Grace fgrace@krcl.com 1/31/2022 3:03:09 PM SENT"
17,2021-07-26,RSP,Pohl,Pohl’s response to Kassab MSJ,"Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, addressing all three grounds (limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity)","Response brief filed in Phase 2 opposing Kassab's dispositive Traditional MSJ. Pohl argues Kassab's motion recycles the same arguments and limited evidence from the TCPA motion and interlocutory appeal, and was filed prior to responding to any discovery. Filed July 26, 2021, approximately 7 weeks after Kassab's MSJ.",MSJ-1,N/A,Phase 2,2021-07-26_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf,Deny Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment in all respects,"7/26/2021 2:51 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 55701585
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 7/26/2021 2:51 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, §
Plaintiffs, §
V. § k
§ e
SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l
LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c
LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r
THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s
NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, §
LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s
FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s
MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., §
Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS LANCE
CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, PC’S
TRADITIONAL MOTION FOlR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond
in opposition to the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance
Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively
“Kassab”). Kassab’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”), which Kassab
filed prior to responding to any discovery, relies on the same arguments and (very limited)
evidence previously presented to this Court and the First Court of Appeals in Kassab’s motion
under the TCPA.c Kassab’s arguments were not persuasive then, nor is his recycled assertion of
them persuasive now.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Pohl is a lawyer who represented various persons and entities in claims arising from motor
vehicle accidents and the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 Pohl engaged Precision
1 Sworn Declaration of Michael A. Pohl (the “Pohl Declaration”) ¶ 3, attached as Exhibit A.
Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gather and preserve
evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.2 While working for
Pohl, Precision naturally gained access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietary information and
property, including trade secret materials.3 Scott Favre, individually and/or thkrough Scott M.
Favre PA, LLC (collectively “Favre”) is the managing member of Precision.4 Flavre took physical
copies of Pohl’s information, stole Pohl’s computers, and misappropriatecd electronic data.5
In November 2016, Kassab—a lawyer who specializes in suinsg other lawyers—purchased
Pohl’s stolen confidential information and property from Favsre (with the assistance of other
Defendants) for a whopping $250,000, plus bonuses,6 taking possession of at least some of the
information and property in December 2016.7 Kassab highly valued Pohl’s stolen and
misappropriated confidential information and property because, after purchasing it, he used it to
contact and solicit Pohl’s clients and prospectiave clients.8 Kassab’s actions constitute conversion,
violations of the uniform trade secrets act (“TUTSA”), and conspiracy.
Favre’s sale of Pohl’s stolen ceonfidential information and client communications to Kassab
violated the terms of a settlementf agreement. That confidential settlement agreement, executed in
late April or early May 2017y (the “Settlement Agreement”), resolved a lawsuit in federal court in
Mississippi, styled No.C 1:14-cv-381-KS-JCG, Scott Walker, et al. v. Jimmy Williamson, et al., In
The United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division (the
2 Id. ¶ 4.
3 Id. ¶ 6.
4 Id.
5 Id. ¶¶ 6–8.
6 November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration (Exhibit A).
7 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration (Exhibit A).
8 Kassab has admitted using Pohl’s client files (while erroneously claiming that they belonged to Precision Marketing)
to contact Pohl’s clients and former clients to solicit them to file claims against Pohl. See Declaration of Lance
Christopher Kassab, attached as Exhibit 1 to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss, filed October 24, 2018.
“Federal Court Case”).9 Favre is a party to the Settlement Agreement, but he was not a party to
the Federal Court Case.10 Precision is the only Defendant in this lawsuit that was also party to the
Federal Court Case.11
Pohl timely brought this lawsuit against Kassab and the other Defendantsk on August 28,
2018.12 l
II. ARGUMENT c
A. Pohl’s Claims are Not Barred by Limitations. s
Pohl’s claims against Kassab accrued no earlier than Nsovember 2016 because they arise
from Kassab’s November 2016 purchase—and subsequent use—of information and property
stolen from Pohl. As no claim has a limitations period of less than two years, and Pohl brought
this lawsuit in August 2018, Pohl’s claims are not barred. Even if this were not so, Kassab has
failed to carry his burden to show that the claimas against him accrued outside the limitations period.
1. The summary judgment standard for the affirmative defense of limitations.
Kassab bears the burden to aned must “conclusively prove when” each of Pohl’s causes of
action accrued and must also nefgate the discovery rule to be entitled to summary judgment on
limitations. See Regency Fiyeld Services, LLC v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC, 622 S.W.3d 807,
818 (Tex. 2021) (“a deCfendant seeking summary judgment based on limitations must conclusively
establish that the limaitations period expired before the claimant filed suit”); see also Motion at 6
(acknowledgingf that Kassab bears this burden).
9 Pohl Declaration ¶¶ 10–11, attached as Exhibit A.
10 Id.
11 See id. ¶ 10; Federal Court Case Order, attached as Exhibit 4 to the Motion (showing parties in the caption). Pohl
made Precision a party to the Federal Court Case through a counterclaim. See generally Pohl’s Federal Counterclaim,
attached as Exhibit 2 to the Motion.
12 See generally Pohl’s Original Petition, filed August 28, 2018.
“Generally, a claim accrues when the defendant’s wrongful conduct causes the claimant to
suffer a legal injury, which gives the claimant the right to seek a judicial remedy.” Regency, 622
S.W.3d at 814 (emphasis added). Texas courts apply specific tests to determine the accrual of
certain claims, including the three claims at issue here. k
A claim for conversion generally accrues at the time of the defendant’sl “unlawful taking”
of the plaintiff’s property. See Burns v. Rochon, 190 S.W.3d 263, 271 (Tcex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2006, no pet.). When property is alleged to have been convesrted and then transferred to
another party, “each possession is a new conversion.” Pemex Esxploracion y Produccion v. BASF
Corp., CIV.A. H-10-1997, 2013 WL 5514944, at *31 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2013) (citation omitted)
(applying Texas law). There is a two-year limitations
period for conversion. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE § 16.003(a).
“A cause of action for trade-secret maisappropriation accrues when the trade secret is
actually used. Use of the trade secret means commercial use by which the offending party seeks
to profit from the use of the secret.”e Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699,
721–22 (Tex. 2016) (cleaned up)f. There is a three-year limitations period for TUTSA violations.
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM y. CODE § 16.010(a). The civil conspiracy claim is derivative of the
underlying torts, and itC accrues “as to each alleged underlying tort when that tort occurs.” Agar
Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int’l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136, 145 (Tex. 2019).
2. Pohflf’s claims against Kassab accrued within two years of the initiation of this suit.
PoUhl brought suit on August 28, 2018 against Kassab and the other Defendants.13 Because
Pohl’s conversion claim accrued after August 28, 2016 and Pohl’s TUTSA claim accrued after
August 28, 2015, Kassab’s affirmative defense of limitations fails.
13 See generally Pohl’s Original Petition, filed August 28, 2018.
Pohl’s conversion claim arises from Kassab’s purchase and subsequent use of information
and property stolen from Pohl. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 36–38.14 The undisputed evidence
shows that Kassab made this purchase through a contract dated November 10, 2016.15 Kassab
took possession of at least some of Pohl’s information and property in December 2k016.16
Pohl’s conversion claim against Kassab accrued when Kassab took polssession of Pohl’s
property. See Burns v. Rochon, 190 S.W.3d 263, 271 (Tex. App.—Houcston [1st Dist.] 2006, no
pet.). It does not matter if there was a prior claim for conversion sagainst other individuals or
entities, as “each possession is a new conversion.” Pemex Exsploracion y Produccion v. BASF
Corp., CIV.A. H-10-1997, 2013 WL 5514944, at *31 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2013) (emphasis added).
Because the contract to purchase the property is dated in November 201617 and Kassab was still
acquiring possession of the stolen property in December 2016,18 Pohl’s claim against Kassab for
conversion accrued, no earlier than Decembera 1, 2016—well within the two-year period.
Pohl’s TUTSA claim against Kassab is based on overlapping conduct. Kassab’s knowing
purchase and subsequent use of stolene trade secrets violated TUTSA. See Amended Complaint ¶¶
39–42. Pohl’s TUTSA claim agfainst Kassab accrued upon Kassab’s use of Pohl’s stolen trade
secrets. See Sw. Energy Proyd. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699, 721–22 (Tex. 2016).
For Kassab’s liCmitation defense to prevail, he must conclusively show that Pohl’s TUTSA
claim against him accrued prior to August 28, 2015. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
16.010(a) (profvfiding a three-year limitations period). Pohl’s claims accrued no earlier than
NovembeUr 10, 2016, as that is the date of the contract through which Kassab purchased Pohl’s
14 See also November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration; Declaration of Lance
Christopher Kassab, attached as Exhibit 1 to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss, filed October 24, 2018.
15 November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration.
16 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration.
17 November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration.
18 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration.
trade secrets.19 As Kassab was still acquiring possession of these materials in December 2016,20
his use of Pohl’s trade secrets—and the accrual of Pohl’s TUTSA claim—necessarily occurred
after November 10, 2016.
3. Kassab’s arguments and evidence about prior wrongdoing are irkrelevant to his
limitations defense. e
Kassab focuses on wrongful conduct by others—conduct that does not give rise to Pohl’s
claims in this lawsuit—to argue that limitations bars Pohl’s claims. See Mr iotion at 7–12. However,
in determining when claims against Kassab accrued, it is Kassab’Ds alleged wrongful conduct that
is relevant, not the conduct of others. Kassab’s participations in the sale and purchase of Pohl’s
information, through a contract dated in November 2016r, and Kassab’s subsequent use of that
information is the conduct that gives rise to Pohl’s claims. See Amended Petition ¶¶ 21–23, 26–
29, 33.21 l
Even if the wrongful conduct of oMthers (that did not give rise to Pohl’s claims) were
somehow relevant to Kassab’s limitaotions defense—and it is not—Kassab has not met his
summary judgment burden. Kasscab acknowledges that he bears the burden of negating the
discovery rule. See Motion at 6.22 To do so, Kassab must conclusively establish that Pohl “knew
or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the wrongful act and resulting
injury” more than three years prior to this lawsuit for his TUTSA claim and more than two years
prior for the convcersion claim. See Regency Field Services, LLC v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC,
622 S.W.3d 807, 817 (Tex. 2021).
19 November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration.
20 December 7, 2016 Email, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Pohl Declaration.
21 See November 10, 2016 Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Pohl Declaration; Declaration of Lance Christopher
Kassab, attached as Exhibit 1 to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss, filed October 24, 2018.
22 See also Pohl’s November 2018 Declaration ¶ 9, attached as Exhibit A to the Amended Petition (providing notice
of the potential application of the discovery rule).
Kassab purports to negate the application of the discovery rule through Pohl’s testimony.
See Motion at 11. However, Kassab’s evidence does not establish what he says it does. The
testimony Kassab cites only shows that at an undefined point prior to Pohl’s May 15, 2018
deposition, Pohl had knowledge of some wrongful conduct by some individual or kindividuals that
occurred in 2014.23 Nothing in Pohl’s testimony establishes when Pohl gaineld knowledge about
the 2014 conduct discussed, nor does it address when Pohl knew of Kassacb’s wrongful conduct.24
And, even if the testimony contained evidence that Kassab wishes its contained, it at most would
create a fact issue regarding the accrual of Pohl’s claims. Pohls has affirmatively testified that he
was not aware of the claims in this case in the two-year period prior to the filing of this case.25
Limitations does not bar Pohl’s claims, and Kassab has not shown that he is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.
B. Res Judicata Does Not Apply to Poahl’s Claims Against Kassab.
Kassab confuses and contorts the conduct at issue in this lawsuit to argue that Pohl’s claims
are barred by res judicata as a result oef the settlement and dismissal of the Federal Court Case. See
Motion at 12–16. Because Kassafb was not a party to the judgment in the Federal Court Case, he
tries to base his res judicatya defense on an unsupported allegation that he is in privity with
Precision—which wasC a party to the Federal Court Case. Id. at 13–14. Tellingly, Precision did
not move for summary judgment (or to dismiss) on the basis that res judicata bars the claims in
this lawsuit.26 f f
23 See Exhibit 3 to the Motion (discussing Pohl’s knowledge and contentions made in May 2018).
24 See generally id.
25 Pohl’s November 2018 Declaration ¶ 9, attached as Exhibit A to the Amended Petition; see also Pohl Declaration
¶ 9, attached as Exhibit A.
26 See generally Motion to Dismiss filed by Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster, LLC and Precision Marketing
Group, LLC on November 16, 2018.
Kassab is not entitled to summary judgment on his res judicata defense because he has not
provided evidence that conclusively establishes its three elements. “Res judicata requires: (1) a
prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) identity of parties or
those in privity with them, and (3) a second action based on the same claims thakt were raised or
could have been raised in the first action.” Burchfield v. Prosperity Bank, 408l S.W.3d 542, 545–
46 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citation omitted). c
The second and third elements are at issue here. Kassab scannot establish the second
element, because he admits he was not a party to the prior judsg  ment and provides no evidence
that he is in privity with anyone who was a party to a prior judgment. Furthermore, Kassab’s
evidence does not establish the third element—that Pohl’s claims against Kassab are “the same
as” the claims settled in the other case or that they could have been brought in that case—as the
evidence shows that each of the two actions haas distinct factual bases and parties.
1. Kassab fails to conclusively establish he is in privity with any party to a final judgment.
Kassab is not entitled to summeary judgment because he provided no evidence that he is in
privity with any party to the judgmfent in the Federal Court Case, nor can he provide such evidence.
See Motion at 13. The couryt in the Federal Court Case dismissed all claims with prejudice after
the parties entered intoC the voluntary Settlement Agreement.27 Kassab was not a party to that
agreement or to thea Federal Court Case, and no party to the Federal Court Case represented his
interests in that faction.
TUexas has rejected categorical approaches to privity, and a court must examine the
particular circumstances of a case before it can determine if parties are in privity. See Burchfield,
408 S.W.3d at 546–47. To determine if a person is in privity with a party to a prior action, a court
27 See Federal Court Case Order, attached as Exhibit 4 to the Motion.
must determine if that person satisfies one of three tests: “(1) they can control an action even if
they are not parties to it; (2) their interests can be represented by a party to the action; or (3) they
can be successors in interest, deriving their claims through a party to the prior action.” Burchfield,
408 S.W.3d at 546–47 (quoting Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 653k (Tex. 1996)).
Kassab does not allege that any of these three tests are satisfied, let alonle provide evidence
to conclusively establish privity with a party to the Federal Court Case. Scee Motion at 13. Rather
than addressing the controlling Texas standard, Kassab asserts thats privity exists because Pohl
alleges in this lawsuit that Kassab conspired with Precision—asn entity which was a party to the
Federal Court Case. Motion at 13. Kassab provides no Texas authority to support this assertion,
instead, Kassab cites to three out-of-state cases, none of which apply Texas law. Id.28
While it is possible for co-conspirators to be in privity with each other, under Texas law,
allegations of conspiracy alone are not enougah—Kassab must show that one of the three tests for
privity is satisfied. See Rogers v. Walker, 13-12-00048-CV, 2013 WL 2298449, at *4 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi May 23, 2013,e pet. denied); New York Pizzeria, Inc. v. Syal, 53 F. Supp. 3d
962, 969 n.6 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (“Tfhis Court predicts that the Texas Supreme Court would not adopt
a rule that alleged coconspiryators are always in privity for the purposes of claim preclusion, but
would instead hold thaCt courts must consider whether the circumstances justify such a ruling.”).
Kassab does not allege or provide any evidence that he (1) had any control in relation to
the Federal Cofufrt Case; (2) that Precision, any other party, represented Kassab’s interests; or (3)
Kassab wUas a successor in interest to Precision or any other party.
28 Kassab relies on out-of-state cases which are distinct from the facts of this case. For example, he relies on RSM
Prod. Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP, 800 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D.D.C. 2011). See Motion at 13. The
court in RSM found co-conspirators to be in privity with each other after the plaintiff attempted to assert the “exact
same alleged corrupt conspiracy” with a new party after that conspiracy claim had been dealt with in a prior action.
See RSM, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 194. The conspiracy alleged in this lawsuit was not part of the Federal Court Case.
Kassab cannot provide evidence to establish control, because, “[i]n determining whether
privity exists through control over a prior action, Texas courts have focused on whether an
individual actively and openly participated in the prior proceedings to such an extent that it was
clear that the individual had the right to direct them.” McNeil Interests, Inc. v. Qkuisenberry, 407
S.W.3d 381, 389 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (quotation lomitted). There is
no evidence to establish that Kassab “openly participated”—or participatced at all—in the Federal
Court Case. s
Kassab also completely fails to prove that Precision reprsesented his interests in the Federal
Court Case. Kassab does not state that he had an interest in the Federal Court Case, let alone
identify that interest or provide evidence that Precision could have represented that interest. See
generally Motion; see also Rogers, 2013 WL 2298449, at *3 (refusing to affirm summary
judgment when movant “did not state that [maovant] had an interest in the probate action, identify
his interest, or state that [a party to the action] could have represented his interest”). The same is
true for the successor in interest test.e No allegations or evidence from Kassab even address this
test, let alone carry Kassab’s sumfmary judgment burden on the issue. See generally Motion.
2. The factual basesy of Pohl’s claims against Kassab are not the “same” as those asserted
in the Federal Court Case, nor could Pohl’s claims have been asserted in that action.
Kassab’s failure to provide evidence of privity prevents him from establishing res judicata.
However, even ifc he had provided evidence of privity, Kassab does not conclusively establish that
this lawsuit “arises out of the same subject matter as the” Federal Court Case and that it could have
been litigated there. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Daccach, 217 S.W.3d 430, 449 (Tex. 2007).
To determine whether the Federal Court Action shares the same “subject matter” as this
lawsuit, the Court should look to “the factual matters that make up the gist of the complaint,
without regard to the form of action.” Id. (cleaned up). “This should be done pragmatically, giving
10
weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation,
whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a trial unit conforms to
the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage.” Id. (cleaned up).
Kassab cites to two pieces of evidence to show “the factual basis of Pohl’sk claims or even
potential claims in the Federal Court Case.” Motion at 14. First, he citesl to Pohl’s Federal
Counterclaim filed in that action. See id. at 13–14 (citing to Pohl’s Federacl Counterclaim, attached
as Exhibit 2 to the Motion). Second, he cites a June 2018 affidavit sfrom Pohl. See id. at 14–15
(citing to Exhibit 1 to the Motion). Neither is sufficient to satsisfy Kassab’s summary judgment
burden.
First, contrary to what Kassab’s misleading citations indicate, the factual basis of Pohl’s
Federal Counterclaim does not overlap at all with the factual bases of this lawsuit. See generally
Pohl’s Federal Counterclaim, attached as Exhaibit 2 to the Motion. To disguise this fact, Kassab
impermissibly focuses on the “form of action,” noting that Pohl “alleged theft” in the
Counterclaim. See Motion at 14. Heowever, the factual basis for that claim in the Federal Court
Case focuses entirely on impropefr billing and charging of expenses by Precision, not the theft of
personal property at issue in ythis lawsuit. Compare Pohl’s Federal Counterclaim, at 2–5, attached
as Exhibit 2 to the MoCtion (discussing conversion of “funds”), with Amended Petition ¶¶ 20–26,
36–38 (discussing the conversion of Pohl’s “confidential information and property”).
Kassabf’fs citation to Pohl’s Federal Counterclaim does not show that the factual bases of
the two aUctions overlap or are the same; it instead demonstrates that the allegations before the
federal court were entirely separate from the allegations in this lawsuit. See Citizens Ins. Co. of
Am. v. Daccach, 217 S.W.3d 430, 449 (Tex. 2007) (discussing how courts look to the “gist of the
complaint”). Pohl’s claims do not arise out of the alleged fraudulent billing practices of entities
11
or individuals in the Federal Court Action. See generally Amended Petition. Pohl’s claims against
Kassab in this lawsuit arise out of the conversion and theft of personal property. See id.
Second, Kassab’s other piece of evidence is Pohl’s June 2018 affidavit filed in response to
a grievance complaint initiated by Kassab against Pohl. See Motion at 14–15 (citking to Exhibit 1
to the Motion). Kassab’s use of this affidavit is misleading because the affidlavit reflects Pohl’s
knowledge after the conclusion of the Federal Court Case. Nor does thce affidavit establish that
the basis of the two actions was the same. s
Kassab triumphantly notes that the affidavit alleges that sFavre (who was not a party to the
Federal Court Case) “appears [to have] eventually sold those items and the information therein to
[Kassab].” See Motion at 15 (quoting Exhibit 1 to the Motion) (alterations from Motion). This
allegation does not establish that Pohl could have brought his current claims in the Federal Court
Case. Pohl’s statement in June 2018—over aa year after the judgment in the Federal Court
Case—about what he believed occurred does not show that the conversion claim in this lawsuit
could have been brought years prior. e In fact, the testimony makes perfect sense, as Pohl filed this
lawsuit just months later, in Augufst 2018.29 Furthermore, even if Pohl did have this knowledge of
prior to the judgment in the Fyederal Court Case, that does not change the fact that the subject matter
of the Federal Court CaCse differs from the factual basis of this lawsuit. See Barr v. Resolution Tr.
Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex. 1992) (“A subsequent suit will be
barred if it arifs f es out of the same subject matter of a previous suit and which through the
exercise oUf diligence, could have been litigated in a prior suit.” (emphasis added)).
Kassab was not a party to the Federal Court Case, the Settlement Agreement or the
judgment. Ignoring the applicable Texas legal standard, Kassab simply asserts that he was in
29 See generally Pohl’s Original Petition, filed August 28, 2018.
12
privity with Precision. Assertions without evidence do not satisfy Kassab’s summary judgment
burden to establish each essential element of res judicata, and his argument fails. Kassab also fails
to demonstrate that the gist of the Federal Court Case overlaps with the present lawsuit, which is
also fatal to Kassab’s res judicata defense. Summary judgment is not available. k
C. The Attorney-Immunity Doctrine Does Not Apply. C l
Kassab contrives an argument that, as an attorney, he is immcune from liability for
converting the property of others and misappropriating trade secretss because after his wrongful
acquisition of property, he used that stolen information for the “sacquisition of clients and filing of
lawsuits.” See Motion at 20. Texas does not recognize any application of the attorney-immunity
doctrine outside of an attorney–client relationship, and Kassab’s wrongful conduct was not the
type of conduct an attorney uniquely engages in to discharge duties to a client. Kassab’s attorney-
immunity doctrine defense fails. a
The Texas Supreme Court has held that two inquiries are relevant to an attorney-immunity
defense: “the type of conduct at issuee and the existence of an attorney–client relationship at the
time.” Youngkin v. Hines, 546 Sf.W.3d 675, 683 (Tex. 2018). The claims against Kassab do not
fall within the attorney-immyunity doctrine because the conduct at issue does not qualify as “the
kind of conduct in whCich an attorney engages when discharging his duties to his client.” Canty
Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 2015). Additionally, Kassab has not established
the existence offf an attorney–client relationship at the time of his wrongful conduct.
KUassab purchased the stolen information and then used it to solicit and advertise to Pohl’s
clients/prospective clients. See Motion at 18–19 (discussing what Kassab contends is the “basis
for Pohl’s lawsuit”). Kassab’s knowing purchase of stolen property prior to his representation of
a client is neither within the scope of his representation of a client nor is it an activity undertaken
13
in a “uniquely lawyerly capacity.” See Landry’s, 2021 WL 2021130, at *3. The use of the
information by Kassab to solicit and advertise to obtain clients is not within the scope of client
representation, because this conduct necessarily precedes the “meeting of the minds” between a
potential client and attorney necessary to form an attorney–client relationship. Seke Tanox, Inc. v.
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 105 S.W.3d 244, 254–55 (Tex. Aplp.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). c
Kassab’s reliance on the First Court of Appeal’s opinion (in wshich that court affirmed this
Court’s denial of his TCPA Motion) is misplaced. Kassab suggessts that the court’s conclusion that
his conduct “qualifies as statements or conduct that arose out of a commercial transaction
involving the type of legal services Kassab provides” demonstrates that his conduct is of the “kind”
that attorneys provide and is thus protected by the attorney-immunity doctrine. See Motion at 19–
20 (discussing Kassab v. Pohl, 612 S.W.3d 5a71, 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet.
denied)). Kassab’s argument conflates the appellate court’s discussion of the scope of a
commercial transaction with the scoepe of Kassab’s duties to a client. The fact that Kassab’s
conduct was part of a commerciafl transaction does not mean that it was both “within the scope of
client representation” and wyas “not foreign to the duties of a lawyer.” Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at
682. C
Kassab also failed to establish or provide any evidence of “the existence of an attorney–
client relationsfhfip at the time” of his wrongful conduct. Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at 683. Kassab
attempts Uto obfuscate his inability to provide evidence of this essential fact by discussing how the
attorney-immunity doctrine can apply “prior to any litigation.” See Motion at 19. While the
doctrine can apply prior to litigation, that is not relevant. Pohl asserts claims for conduct, not just
before litigation, but before Kassab had a single client with whom he could have the requisite
14
attorney–client relationship. See, e.g., Amended Petition ¶ 29 (discussing how Kassab used “the
stolen confidential information and property” to subsequentially solicit “clients/prospective clients
to act as plaintiffs”); see also Tanox, 105 S.W.3d at 254–55 (noting how attorney–client
relationship cannot be formed prior to a “meeting of the minds”). k
In sum, Kassab cannot show that his wrongful actions were “within lthe scope of client
representation” and were “not foreign to the duties of a lawyer.” Youngckin, 546 S.W.3d at 682.
In other words, Kassab is entitled to immunity only if he can establishs as a matter of law that when
he engaged in his alleged wrongful acts, he was acting nots only within the scope of client
representation, but that there was something “particular to ‘the office, professional training, skill,
and authority of an attorney’ about” his alleged wrongful conduct. See Landry’s, Inc. v. Animal
Legal Def. Fund, --- S.W.3d ---, 19-0036, 2021 WL 2021130, at *3, *8 (Tex. May 21, 2021)
(citation omitted). Kassab has not shown thisa. See Motion at 17–20.
Because Kassab did not provide evidence of the existence of an attorney–client relationship
at the time of his wrongful actiones and that those actions were within the scope of his
representation, his request for sufmmary judgment on the attorney-immunity doctrine must be
denied. The fact that his wryongful conduct of purchasing stolen information was not the type of
conduct undertaken in Ca “uniquely lawyerly capacity” only further supports this conclusion.
III. CONCLUSION
For thef fforegoing reasons, Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl
respectfuUlly request that Kassab’s Motion be in all respects denied.
15
Dated: July 26, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650 k
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e
Houston, Texas 77002 l
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250 c
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom
Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERrVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 26th day of July, 2021.
M /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
 Jean C. Frizzell
16"
15,2018-12-26,RSP,Pohl,Pohl’s response to supp. TCPA motion,"Pohl's combined notice of mandatory stay, response in opposition to motion for leave to file late TCPA motion, and response in opposition to Favre/Precision's TCPA Motion to Dismiss","Filed December 26, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Filed after Kassab's TCPA motion was denied by operation of law and Kassab noticed an interlocutory appeal on December 18, 2018. Pohl argues a mandatory stay bars consideration of the Favre/Precision TCPA motion. This response addresses both the timeliness of the Favre/Precision motion (filed after the 60-day TCPA deadline) and the merits of the TCPA dismissal arguments.",TCPA-1,N/A,Phase 1,2018-12-26_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Supp-MTD-TCPA_FILED.pdf,Deny the Motion for Leave to file late TCPA motion; deny the Motion to Dismiss as untimely and on the merits; deny attorney's fees,"12/26/2018 11:52 AM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 29957412
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 12/26/2018 11:52 AM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, §
Plaintiffs, §
V. § k
§ e
SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § l
LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c
LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r
THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s
NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § D
LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s 
FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s
MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., §
Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL’S
NOTICE OF MANDATORY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS, RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVEl TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO aDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) provide
this notice that all proceedings are staeyed, respond in opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a
Motion to Dismiss filed by Defenfdants Scott Favre (“Mr. Favre”), Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster,
LLC (“Favre”), and Precisioyn Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) (collectively, “Defendants”),
and respond in oppositCion to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”).
In light of the filing of an interlocutory appeal, this case is currently subject to a mandatory
stay, precludinfgf the Court’s consideration of the Motion. In addition, the Motion was not timely
filed andU should be denied for that reason. Finally, the Motion purports to find its basis in the
Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 27.001 et. seq.
(“TCPA”), but the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, and even if it did, the Motion would
fail.
THIS CASE IS SUBJECT TO A MANDATORY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS
Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The
Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) moved to dismiss the claims against Kassab by a kmotion filed on
October 24, 2018. That motion was overruled by operation of law, and Kassabl noticed an appeal
of that denial on December 18, 2018. Kassab’s notice of appeal gave risce to a mandatory stay of
“all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that asppeal.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 51.014(b). The stay applies to all of the “trial csourt’s proceedings, including all
discovery.” In re Roser, 14-16-00065-CV, 2016 WL 2605686, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] May 5, 2016, orig. proceeding). The stay precludes this Court’s consideration of the Motion.
See In re Texas Educ. Agency, 441 S.W.3d 747, 750 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, orig. proceeding.)
(“Conducting hearings and signing the challenaged orders denying supersedeas was an abuse of the
district court’s discretion because it violated the automatic stay of ‘all other proceedings in the trial
court’ under section 51.014(b).”). Tehe mandatory stay of section 51.014(b) prevents the Court
from considering the Motion, or ftaking any other action, until the appeal is resolved. See In re
Bliss & Glennon, Inc., 1-13-y00320-CV, 2014 WL 50831, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Jan. 7, 2014, orig. proCceeding) (finding abuse of discretion and granting mandamus relief after
trial court took action during a mandatory stay under section 51.014(b)).
So longf fas the appeal of the denial of Kassab’s TCPA motion to dismiss remains pending,
this CourUt must stay all proceedings, including a hearing on the Motion. Any action taken in
violation of the stay will be voidable. See Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919, 923
(Tex. 2011) (noting that a trial court’s actions taken in violation of section 51.014(b) are “voidable,
not void”).
II.
THE COURT SHOULD DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
THEIR MOTION OUT OF TIME
The TCPA supplies a deadline for filing: “A motion to dismiss a legal action under this
section must be filed not later than the 60th day after the date of service of the leegal action.” TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.003(b). The 60-day period begins to run upon
service of the original
petition and is not reset by the filing of amended petitions. See Bachararch v. Garcia, 485 S.W.3d
600, 602 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). D
Defendants acknowledge in their Motion for Leave thast they filed their Motion to Dismiss
after the deadline had passed. See Motion for Leave at 1.r While a showing of good cause would
permit this Court to allow an out-of-time filing, Defendants failed to request an extension within
the requisite sixty-day period and have failed to lmake such a showing of good cause. TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.003(b) (“court mMay extend the time to file a motion under this section
on a showing of good cause.” (emphasis added)). The term “showing” indicates that “proof” is
involved and that good cause will be “establish[ed] through evidence and argument.” See Bryan
A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining “showing”).
Defendants attempt but fail to make any showing of good cause. Defendants provide no
explanation for the failure to file timely and therefore no basis on which to rest a finding of good
cause. Instead, cDefendants ask the Court to find that the late filing could not have been
“intentional” because they “had nothing to gain by filing the Motion after the deadline.” See
Motion for Leave at 3. In fact, Defendants did gain something by filing late; because the Court
conducted the hearing on Kassab’s TCPA Motion to Dismiss on November 5, 2018, Defendants
were able to tailor their Motion in response to the Court’s reaction to Kassab’s Motion.
Additionally, even if Defendants did not “gain” anything by a late filing, this is not
evidence of an absence of intent; it is merely a suggestion of an absence of motive. Defendants
have not provided any support for their position that the delay was for good cause.
Defendants similarly have provided no support for their argument that thek late filing was
not the result of conscious indifference. They argue only that the Court shoulld find that counsel
was not consciously indifferent because the filing was only three days clate. See id. Favre had
sixty days within which to file his motion, and his co-defendant Kasssab filed and served a TCPA
motion to dismiss on the fortieth day of that period.1 Kassab’s fsiling would have alerted a careful
lawyer to the impending deadline for his own filing. Defendants’ failure to make a timely filing
after that reminder actually suggests conscious indifference. See Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d
439, 442 n.1 (Tex. 2005) (characterizing a lawyer’s failure to meet a deadline as an “elementary
mistake” that could warrant a conclusion of inatent or conscious indifference).
Given the absence of any evidence to support their claim for good cause, Defendants’
Motion for Leave should be denied. Peohl respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion for
Leave and decline to hear the Moftion to Dismiss as untimely.
y III.
RESPCONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
A. Background
Defendfafnts, with Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law
Firm’s (cUollectively “Nicholson”) assistance, illegally sold Pohl’s stolen property to defendant
Lance Kassab for $250,000. Through this purchase, Kassab obtained the stolen names, addresses,
and in some instances actual confidential client files of Pohl’s former and potential clients so that
1 Favre was served on September 14, and Kassab filed his motion to dismiss on October 24, 2018.
Kassab could solicit those clients to assert barratry claims. To vindicate his rights, Pohl filed suit
on August 28, 2018. Since the initiation of this case, Kassab and Nicholson have already sought
dismissal of the claims against them; now Defendants ask the Court to hold that their actions in
selling and actually providing the stolen materials are protected by the TCPA. k
In an attempt to contort the application of the TCPA and delay this lalwsuit, Defendants
assert that the TCPA applies to Pohl’s causes of action for conversion of cconfidential information,
misappropriation of trade secrets, and conspiracy without sustaining tsheir burden of demonstrating
why. Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, Pohl’s claims do not starget Defendants for the exercise
of any rights of free speech, petition, or association. Pohl brings claims to hold Defendants
responsible for their wrongful conversion of Pohl’s information and misappropriation of trade
secrets, together with their participation in a conspiracy to commit both torts. The claims on their
face do not implicate the TCPA, and the inquiary should end there.
Defendants have the burden of demonstrating the applicability of the TCPA by a
preponderance of the evidence. See LeFMC Enterprises, LLC v. Baker, 546 S.W. 3d 893, 897 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018,f pet. denied). In spite of this requirement, Defendants offer no
evidence of any kind to suppyort their position that the legal action is based on, relates to or is in
response to DefendantsC’ exercise of any protected right. Instead, Defendants, relying entirely on
non-binding precedent, simply argue that the TCPA necessarily applies to any claim for theft of
trade secrets, cfofnversion, and conspiracy, without examining those claims as they are asserted in
this case.U
Even if Defendants had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the TCPA
applies, Defendants’ Motion would nevertheless fail. Pohl’s suit is exempt from the TCPA by
virtue of the commercial exception to that statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.010(b).
The communications at issue with Defendants arose out of a transaction involving the types of
goods and services Precision provides. Precision was primarily engaged in the business of
providing goods and services related to marketing lists, including those for potential customers—
like the converted trade secret information at issue here. The intended audikence for those
communications was Kassab and Montague, who eventually purchased the stollen information. In
a similar fashion, through the combined ownership and control interests inc Precision, which places
them in charge of Precision’s business, Mr. Favre and Favre’s condusct also falls squarely into the
commercial speech exception. s 
Although it is clear that the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, Pohl fully sets forth his
prima facie case for each element of his causes of action. The pleadings and the affidavits Pohl
supplies can leave no question that he has satisfied the second prong of the TCPA analysis.
Defendants argue but fails to conclusively estaablish the affirmative defense of limitations, which
does not bar Pohl’s claims. 
B. Defendant’s Motion Shoulde Be Denied
The Texas Legislature enfacted the TCPA “to encourage and safeguard the constitutional
rights of persons to petition, sypeak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government
to the maximum extenCt permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of a person to
file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.002
(emphasis addefdf). The TCPA is intended to identify and dispose of lawsuits that are “designed to
chill FirstU Amendment Rights, not to dismiss meritorious lawsuits.” In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579,
589 (Tex. 2015).
“Courts use a ‘two-step procedure to expedite the dismissal of claims brought to intimidate
or to silence a defendant’s exercise of these First Amendment rights.’” Wayne Dolcefino &
Dolcefino Communications, LLC v. Cypress Creek EMS, 540 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (quoting ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895,
898 (Tex. 2017)). The first step of the TCPA analysis requires that the movant establish by “a
preponderance of evidence that the suit he is seeking to dismiss ‘is based on, relkates to, or is in
response to the [movant’s] exercise of: (1) the right of free speech; (2) the righlt to petition; or (3)
the right of association.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting TEX. CIVc. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
27.003). s
If the movant sustains its burden of demonstrating by a psreponderance of the evidence that
the claims asserted in the petition fall within the ambit of the TCPA, and only then, the court turns
to the second step in the process. That step shifts the burden to the non-movant to provide by clear
and specific evidence a prima facie case supporting the elements of its claim. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 27.005(c). In examining awhether a plaintiff has sustained its burden of
demonstrating a prima facie case, a court is obligated to consider “the pleadings and supporting
and opposing affidavits stating the facets on which the liability or defense is based.” Id. § 27.006(a).
A prima facie case is established wfhen the pleadings and evidence supply the “‘minimum quantum
of evidence necessary to suypport a rational inference that the allegation of fact is true.’” In re
Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d atC 590 (quoting In re E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 223
(Tex. 2004)).
As set ffofrth below, neither of the two prongs necessary to dismiss claims under the TCPA
are satisfiUed here, and Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
1. Pohl’s allegations on their face do not implicate the TCPA
To determine whether Defendants have proved to the Court by a preponderance of the
evidence that the TCPA applies to Pohl’s claims, the Court should start with the most recent
petition to determine the alleged conduct that forms the basis of the legal action. See Hersh v.
Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. 2017) (the “basis of a legal action is not determined by the
defendant’s admissions or denials but by the plaintiff’s allegations”). Courts “do not blindly accept
attempts by the [defendants] to characterize [plaintiff’s] claims as implicakting protected
expression.” Sloat v. Rathbun, 513 S.W.3d 500, 504 (Tex. App.—Austin 2l015, pet. dism’d).
Instead, courts should “favor[] the conclusion that [the plaintiff’s] claimcs are not predicated on
protected expression.” Id. Further, “any activities by the [defendsants] that are not a factual
predicate for [the plaintiff’s] claims are simply not pertinent to tshe inquiry.” Id.
A movant under the TCPA must establish “a connection between the claims in the lawsuit
and the alleged protected conduct.” Wayne Dolcefino, 540 S.W.3d at 201. In conducting this
review, the Court must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Id. at
199. The Court’s inquiry should focus on (1a) what conduct forms the factual bases for Pohl’s
claims, based on the pleadings and evidence viewed in the light most favorable to him, and (2) the
extent to which that conduct is, as ae matter of law, are protected expression within the TCPA’s
definition. Sloat, 513 S.W.3d at f504.
Examining each of Pyohl’s claims against Defendants makes clear that they are not subject
to the TCPA. As PohlC’s First Amended Petition makes clear, Defendants engaged in conversion
through the act and a participation in Precision’s sale of stolen information to Kassab.2 Defendants’
liability for thisf f wrongful conduct is not based on facts related to the exercise of the rights of free
speech, pUetition, or association. Instead, their liability is based on their conduct of facilitating the
sale and the actual selling of the stolen materials.
2 See Amended Petition at ¶¶ 21–23.
Similarly, Pohl’s TUTSA claim is based on Defendants’ conduct in misappropriating trade
secrets through their sale to Kassab. For the same reasons as above, the factual basis of liability
for this claim does not trigger protections under the TCPA.
Pohl’s conspiracy claim involves Defendants’ overt acts in selling and Pohkl’s trade secrets
and other proprietary information.3 Yet again, nothing in the factual basis of lialbility provided for
this claim is based on or targets Defendants for the exercise of their rightsc of free speech, petition,
or association. s
Pohl has also asserted a claim for breach of contract agsainst Defendants. See Amended
Petition ¶ 35. Defendants have failed to seek the dismissal of the breach of contract claim in their
Motion. See generally Motion (containing no reference or discussion of the breach of contract
claim). Accordingly, Pohl’s breach of contract claim cannot be dismissed.
For all four of Pohl’s claims against aDefendants, the theory of liability is predicated on
wrongful acts, not protected speech or conduct. Pohl brought this lawsuit to vindicate his rights,
and not in response to or based upone any TCPA protected conduct. The pleadings and evidence
the Court must use to determine fif the TCPA applies make this clear. The Texas Supreme Court
has held that the petition is thye “best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action.” Hersh
v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d C462, 467 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples, 95 S.W.2d
1300, 1302 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1936)), and Pohl’s Amended Petition establishes that the nature
of the action dof fes not implicate the TCPA.
2.U Defendants have not sustained their burden of demonstrating the applicability
of the TCPA to Pohl’s claims.
As the movants, Defendants have the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence
that Pohl’s claims are “based on, relate[] to, or [are] in response to [the Defendants’] exercise of”
3 See Amended Petition ¶ 43. See id. ¶ 38.
some protected speech or act. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b). As set forth above,
Pohl’s claims on their face do not support Defendants’ invocation of the TCPA, and Defendants
are required to show a “connection between the claims in the lawsuit and the alleged protected
conduct.” Wayne Dolcefino, 540 S.W.3d at 201. Also, the Defendants must demoknstrate that the
protected conduct on which the Defendants rely is connected to the “facts on wlhich the liability or
defense is based.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.006(a). c
Defendants filed no evidentiary support for their Motion. Aslthough five exhibits were
attached to Favre’s Motion, those exhibits are not verified, and thse Court should decline to consider
them. Defendants have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Pohl’s claims
are based on any act or communication protected under the TCPA. Instead, Defendants make
sweeping generalizations about the case law and rely on recharacterizations of the allegations in
Pohl’s Amended Petition. Courts have explicaitly rejected this very tactic, holding that defendants
cannot rely on their own theories of what may have motivated a claim or what its underlying basis
might be in order to support a motione to dismiss under the TCPA. See Sloat, 513 S.W.3d at 504
(rejecting the defendant’s effort tfo “recast [the Plaintiff’s] petition as complaining principally” of
actions of protest instead of ythe actions on which the petition was based). Although Defendants
make conclusory asserCtions that Pohl’s claims are “based on” or are “in response to” their alleged
protected conduct, the Court may not “blindly accept” those characterizations of Pohl’s
allegations. Infsftead, the Court must keep in mind that there needs to “be a connection between the
claims inU the lawsuit and the alleged protected conduct.” Wayne Dolcefino, 540 S.W.3d at 201.
a. No Showing Was Made that the Right of Association is Implicated by Pohl’s Claims
Defendants make unsupported assertions that Pohl’s trade secret and conspiracy claims
implicate their right of association. See Motion at 4–6. Instead of carrying their burden to show
10
that Pohl’s specific claims implicate their right of association, Defendants’ argument confuses
necessary and sufficient conditions; they mistakenly believe that because the TCPA can apply to
a trade secrets claim that it must apply to theirs. That simply does not follow. Even with the heavy
reliance on non-binding authority to argue for their expansive view of the TCPAk’s applicability,
Defendants are still unable to support this conclusion. l
The Motion cites the same two cases (both non-binding) discussicng the application of the
TCPA to cases involving trade secrets as were discussed in the Nichoslson Motion. See Motion at
4–5; Nicholson Motion at 4–5. Although it is certainly possibles for the TCPA to apply to a trade
secrets case, Defendants fail to provide any support for the notion that in every case, the mere
assertion of a trade secrets claim necessarily implicates the TCPA. To suggest that it does leads
to the absurd conclusion that instead of modifying trade secrets procedure directly, the Texas
Legislature decided to modify the administraation of all trade secrets cases through a statute that
does not even reference or deal with trade secrets.
The Motion does not provide eany evidence or even a quote from the Petition to argue that
Pohl’s trade secrets claims are anfalogous to those at issue in the cases cited. Instead, Defendants
rely on generic assertions thayt the TCPA must apply in this case as well. Defendants are required
to provide more to sCustain their burden of demonstrating the statute’s applicability by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Similarflfy, the Motion fails to carry its burden to show that the TCPA applies to Pohl’s
claim of cUonspiracy. Ignoring the fact that Defendants rely heavily on non-binding authority, there
is yet again a failure by the Defendants to carry their burden. Other than a single citation to the
Original Petition (which merely confirms that a civil conspiracy claim was made), no evidence is
provided to the Court at all—let alone evidence sufficient to support the application of the TCPA
11
to this claim. Defendants yet again relies on the mere existence of a conspiracy claim to trigger
the application of the TCPA. No legal authority is provided to support this idea. And again, it
would lead to ridiculous results for this Court to hold that Defendants can take advantage of the
TCPA merely by pointing out that a conspiracy claim was made, without also esktablishing by a
preponderance of the evidence that the factual basis of the claim implicates thel TCPA.
b. No Showing Was Made that the Right to Free Speech is Implicatecd by Pohl’s Claims
The Motion’s arguments related to free speech focus not on sPohl’s claims, but rather on
the Defendants’ conduct subsequent to engaging in the wrongfusl acts that form the basis of Pohl’s
claims. The problem with this approach should be immediately apparent to this Court. To allow
this to trigger the TCPA would allow Defendants to manufacture TCPA applicability. Defendants
could engage in wrongful conduct and then simply undertake activities afterwards that involve
speech or association to ensure that the TCPAa applies to claims brought against them. This cannot
be the way the TCPA works, and it is not the way it works.
In this case, the Defendanets are not being sued for bringing barratry claims or
communicating about alleged attforney misconduct. Defendants are being sued for selling stolen
trade secrets. This is not a ysituation where a plaintiff is suing defendants regarding defamation
related to their commuCnications and complaints about barratry. Defendants’ conduct subsequent
to their sale of the stolen trade secrets is not the basis of their liability. Defendants cannot carry
their burden tof fshow that Pohl’s claims implicate their free speech rights. Nothing in the four
paragraphUs of Pohl’s Original Petition cited by the Motion show that Pohl’s claims are based on
communications by Defendants that implicate their right to free speech. See Motion at 7–8 (citing
paragraphs 19–23 of Pohl’s Original Petition).
12
It should not be surprising that Defendants’ Motion does not discuss Pohl’s actual claims
in its arguments—to do so would illustrate that they are not based on Defendants exercising any
free speech rights. Defendants’ wholesale failure to support by a preponderance of the evidence
their position that the TCPA applies is fatal to the Motion. The Court should denyk the Motion on
that basis alone. l
3. Even if the TCPA otherwise applies, the commerciacl exception precludes
dismissal here. r
Even if Defendants had sustained their initial burden to showD the applicability of the TCPA,
the commercial exception to its application applies to Pohl’s cslaims. The TCPA provides:
This chapter does not apply to a legal action brorught against a person primarily
engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, if the statement or
conduct arises out of the sale or lease of goods, services, or an insurance product,
insurance services, or a commercial transaction in which the intended audience is
an actual or potential buyer or customer. l
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.010(bM). The Texas Supreme Court has interpreted this as
requiring the following four-part test:
(1) the defendant was primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods
[or services], (2) the defefndant made the statement or engaged in the conduct on
which the claim is based in the defendant’s capacity as a seller or lessor of those
goods or services, (3y) the statement or conduct at issue arose out of a commercial
transaction involving the kind of goods or services the defendant provides, and (4)
the intended aCudience of the statement or conduct were actual or potential
customers of the defendant for the kind of goods or services the defendant provides.
Castleman v. Intecrnet Money Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. 2018).
It is notable that the Motion does not even attempt to claim that the commercial speech
exception to the TCPA does not apply to Precision. See Motion at 9–12. The allegations against
Precision are precisely the situation that the commercial speech exception was made for: (1) As a
marketing firm, Precision is primarily engaged in the business of providing goods and services
related to marketing lists, including those for potential customers—like the converted trade secret
13
information at issue here; (2) Precisions’ conversion and sale of Pohl’s trade secrets was done in
its capacity as a seller of its marketing goods and services; (3) the conversion and sale of Pohl’s
trade secrets was a commercial transaction involving the marketing goods and services Precision
provides; and (4) Precision’s intended audience for that conduct was its actual cukstomer, Kassab
as the purchaser of the converted trade secrets. All four elements of Castlemanl are clearly met.
In a similar fashion, through the combined ownership and controlc of Precision, Mr. Favre
and Favre’s conduct also fall squarely into the commercial speech esxception. See Castleman v.
Internet Money Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. 2018) (discusssing how the “capacity” of the
person is relevant to whether the person was primarily engaged in selling goods or services). The
basis of Mr. Favre and Favre’s liability in this case stems from their actions taken in their capacity
as owners and managers of Precision.
The Motion attempts to shift away froma the commercial speech exception by distinguishing
between other activities undertaken by Mr. Favre and Favre (such as public adjusting) and the
marketing activities of Precision. Seee Motion at 10–12. However, Castleman makes clear that it
is possible to for both Mr. Favref and Favre to have multiple capacities, including ones that are
primarily engaged in selling ygoods or services.
4. There iCs clear and specific evidence demonstrating a prima facie case.
Defendants’ failure to demonstrate the applicability of the TCPA relieves Pohl of any
burden of demfofnstrating a prima facie case of his claims. Furthermore, Pohl has established the
applicabiUlity of the commercial exception to the TCPA, which likewise obviates the need to show
a prima facie case. Pohl nevertheless sets forth below the clear and specific evidence found in his
14
Amended Petition and the attached affidavits for each element of the claims he has asserted against
Defendants.4
In examining whether a plaintiff has sustained its burden of demonstrating a prima facie
case, the Court is obligated to consider “the pleadings and supporting and oppkosing affidavits
stating the facts on which the liability or defense is based.” TEX. CIV. PRCAlC. & REM. CODE §
27.006(a). Where a plaintiff provides enough detail in his pleading to “schow the factual basis for
its claim,” such a pleading “is sufficient to resist a TCPA motion tos dismiss.” In re Lipsky, 460
S.W.3d 579, 591 (Tex. 2015). A prima facie case is establisheds when the pleadings and evidence
supply the “‘minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the
allegation of fact is true.’” Id. at 590 (quoting from In re E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136
S.W.3d 218, 223 (Tex. 2004)).
The nonmovant’s evidence of a primaa facie case must be “clear and specific” in order to
avoid dismissal, id. § 27.005(c), although the statute does not define “clear and specific.” The
Texas Supreme Court, in Lipsky, refeerenced “clear” as meaning “‘unambiguous,’ ‘sure,’ or ‘free
from doubt,’” and “specific” as “f‘explicit’ or ‘relating to a particular named thing.’” Lipsky, 460
S.W.3d at 590; see also S &y S Emergency Training Sols., Inc. v. Elliott, ---S.W.3d---, 17-0628,
2018 WL 6711322, at C*3 (Tex. Dec. 21, 2018). The Court has also held that “direct evidence of
damages is not required, but the evidence must be sufficient to allow a rational inference that some
damages naturaf flly flowed from the defendant’s conduct. See Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d. at 591, 592.
InU his Amended Petition, Pohl asserts four causes of action against Defendants: (1) breach
of contract; (2) conversion; (3) violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Texas Civil
Practices and Remedies Code Chapter 134A (“TUTSA”); and (4) conspiracy to commit conversion
4 In support of this Response, Pohl has attached two sworn documents, the affidavit of Billy Shepherd, Exhibit A, and
the declaration of Michael Pohl, Exhibit B.
15
and to violate TUTSA. Pohl sets forth in detail below the clear and specific evidence
demonstrating a prima facie case of each of these claims.
Because Defendants have not moved to dismiss Pohl’s breach of contract claim, Pohl is
not required to provide a prima facie case of that claim. Pohl can nevertheless ekstablish such a
prima facie case by demonstrating the existence of the Settlement Agreement land release, Pohl’s
performance under that agreement, Defendants’ failure to perform under thcat Agreement by selling
Pohl’s confidential materials to Kassab; and Pohl’s damages resultisng from that sale. See, e.g.,
Prime Products, Inc. v. S.S.I. Plastics, Inc., 97 S.W.3d 631, 636s (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2002, pet. denied) (setting forth elements of a breach of contract claim).
The elements of the conversion claim are that (a) Pohl owned and owns certain property
and information; and (b) Defendants wrongfully exercised dominion and control over Pohl’s
property in contravention of Pohl’s rights aby participating in the sale of the property and
information to Kassab for $250,000. The elements of a violation of TUTSA against Defendants
are that Defendants, without Pohl’s econsent knowingly participated in the sale of Pohl’s trade
secrets to Kassab for $250,000. f Finally, the conspiracy claim alleges that Defendants acted in
combination with other defyendants and committed overt acts toward unlawful conversion and
misappropriation. C
Pohl’s pleading—the First Amended Petition—sets forth in abundant detail each element
of each cause foff action. Pohl alleges that he hired defendant Precision Marketing Group, LLC
(“PrecisioUn”) to assist him in gathering and preserving evidence and liaise with Pohl’s clients.5
Precision thereby gained access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietary information relating to his
client’s identity and their detailed contact information.6 The information and property also included
5 Amended Petition ¶¶ 19–20.
6 Id. ¶ 20.
16
actual attorney-client fee agreements with clients/prospective clients, compilations of clients, other
confidential communications between the clients/prospective clients and Pohl, specialized legal forms
that had been prepared in compliance with various state laws after consultation with local counsel in
those jurisdictions, Pohl’s proprietary administrative client forms, fee-agreement fokrms prepared in
accordance with the laws of various states, internal emails, propriety marketing inlformation and other
trade secrets, and other work product relating claims of Pohl’s clients cand prospective clients.7
Despite Defendants’ claims to the contrary, these materials belonged tos Pohl, not Precision.
After a dispute arose between Pohl and Defendants concesrning the Defendants’ provision of
services, Pohl, Precision and Mr. Favre entered into a binding Settlement Agreement dated late April
and early May 2017.8 The Settlement Agreement expressly provides that Mr. Favre and Precision
will return to Pohl all originals and all copies of documents in their and their counsel’s possession,
custody, or control that concern or identify all apast or current clients or prospective clients of Pohl,
and that Mr. Favre and Precision will delete all such electronically stored information.9 The
Settlement Agreement also providede that Mr. Favre and Precision would not cause any claim,
complain, or legal action to be filefd f or made against Pohl.10 Defendants breached each aspect of the
Settlement Agreement by failying to return or delete the materials as promised and by causing claims,
complaints and legal acCtions—not their own—to be filed and prosecuted against Pohl.11 The very
existence of the cases that Kassab, Montague, and Nicholson are pursuing against Pohl is a breach of
the Settlement Af fgreement.12
7 Id.
8 Id. ¶¶ 30, 31.
9 Id. ¶ 31.
10 Id. ¶ 32.
11 Id. ¶ 32.
12 Id. ¶ 32.
17
Defendants, with the assistance of Nicholson who helped broker the transaction and
actually provided Pohl’s stolen information and property to Kassab, secretly entered into an
agreement with Kassab and defendants F. Douglas Montague III and Montague Pittman &
Varnado, P.A. (collectively, “Montague”) to sell Pohl’s stolen confidential inkformation and
property.13 Defendants, with the assistance of Nicholson, struck a rich balrgain; Kassab and
Montague paid Favre $250,000.00 in cash together with substantial bonuses.c14 Kassab and Montague
knew that the information and property that they were purchasing was sstolen and not Favre’s and/or
Nicholson’s to sell.15 Defendants and Nicholson likewise knews that the information and property
that they were selling or helping to sell was stolen and belonged to Pohl.16
The sale and unlawful disclosure of Pohl’s proprietary, confidential and trade secret
information was made even more egregious by the fact that from the outset of the relationship between
Pohl and Precision, Pohl made clear to Precisioan and its representatives the confidential nature of the
above listed information.17 Precision and its representatives expressed their understanding of the
confidential and proprietary nature of ethe information and that the information belonged to Pohl.18
In addition, as described afbove and in conjunction with the sale of Pohl’s information and
property to Kassab and Montaygue, all Defendants converted Pohl’s confidential information/property
by knowingly and uCnlawfully assuming and exercising dominion and control over that
information/property in a way that was inconsistent with Pohl’s ownership. Each of the Defendants,
individually andf f in combination with each other, misappropriated Pohl’s trade secrets in violation of
the TUTUSA by unlawfully obtaining and using Pohl’s confidential and trade secret
13 Id. ¶ 22–23.
14 Id. ¶ 23 & Exhibit B.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.¶ 25.
18 Id.
18
information/property in the sale of such information/property to Kassab and Montague and continuing
to use Pohl’s information and property to solicit cases against Pohl.19
These specific, detailed allegations of each element of breach of contract, conversion, theft
of trade secrets, and conspiracy are by themselves sufficient to set forth a prima fackie case meeting
the requirements of the TCPA. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(a); se
e allso Hicks v. Group
& Pension Administrators, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 518, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpucs Christi 2015, no pet.).
Although Pohl’s Amended Petition establishes a prima facie csase without the necessity for
further inquiry, Pohl provides additional evidence to supposrt his prima facie case against
Nicholson in the form of the attached affidavit of Billy Shepherd and the exhibits thereto, as well
as the declaration of Michael Pohl.
As quoted above, Kassab supplied an affidavit in which he admitted that he obtained from
Defendants and Nicholson information that iancluded the names and addresses of Pohl’s former
clients and prospective clients.20 
The admissions of both Kasesab and Nicholson make clear that it is not disputed that
Montague and Kassab bought inffo f rmation relating to Pohl’s client lists from Defendants.21 Most
elements of Pohl’s prima faycie case are therefore uncontroverted. The only controverted fact
involves ownership of Cthe materials, as Defendants claim that the materials belong to them, while
Pohl contends that the materials were his. This disputed fact is one as to which Pohl has provided
prima facie profoff.22
TUhe attached affidavits provide prima facie evidence of the following facts. Favre, the
Kassab Law Firm and Montague, Pittman and Varnado, P.A., represented by Nicholson, entered
19 Id. ¶ 33.
20 See page 2 of the Declaration of Lance Christopher Kassab.
21 Id.
22 Amended Petition ¶ 20; Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶¶ 4–6, attached as Exhibit B hereto.
19
into an Agreement, dated November 10, 2016, executed by Lance Kassab (the “Favre–Kassab
Agreement”).23 The Favre–Kassab Agreement contains many relevant provisions, including:
• That Kassab and Montague will pay Favre an hourly rate of $250, a large per-case fee,
and an “upfront advance pay retainer to Favre forin [sic] the amount of k$250,000 to be
credited against first fees earned by Favre. This retainer is fully eCarlned at the time of
payment and is not refundable. Subsequent hourly fees are not toc be credited against the
retainer.”24 s
• That Kassab and Montague “shall indemnify and hold hsarmless Favre for from [sic] any
and all costs he incurs in defending claims relatingg to an/or arising from the disclosure of
any client information where such claims areB asserted by . . . Michael Pohl. . . . Favre
certifies that he is not aware of any contractual or legal provision that prohibits him from
making such disclosure to [Kassab anad Montague].”25
• That the parties “agree that this Af greement is confidential and shall remain confidential
for all times.”26 e
On its face, the Favre–Kassab Afgreement proves that Kassab agreed to pay Favre an enormous
upfront payment of $250,000, together with substantial sums over time. The amount of the
payment alone is primaC facie evidence that Defendants knew that the confidential information and
material they were selling was not publicly known and that it belonged to Pohl.
The Favfre–Kassab Agreement also obligates Kassab to indemnify Favre from claims that
Pohl migUht bring—making clear that Nicholson and Favre contemplated that Pohl might assert
23 A copy of the Favre–Kassab Agreement is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Shepherd Affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit
A, and also to the Amended Petition as Exhibit D.
24 See Favre-Kassab Agreement, Exhibit 3 to the Shepherd Affidavit, Exhibit A hereto, Exhibit D to the Amended
Petition, p. 1.
25 Id. p. 3.
26 Id.
20
such claims at the time he executed the agreement. What possible reason could there be for
Nicholson to require Kassab to indemnify if Defendants owned the materials and information that
was the subject of the Favre–Kassab Agreement? Why would indemnity be necessary if the
information and materials were publicly known? Again, these facts support Pohkl’s prima facie
case of misappropriation. l
Similarly, the requirement in the Favre–Kassab Agreement thcat the parties keep the
agreement confidential suggests that the parties understood that disclsosure of the existence of the
agreement and its terms might raise substantial issues. If thes materials and information were
publicly known and belonged to Defendants, what was the necessity for confidentiality? Each of
these facts supports Pohl’s allegation that the materials and information were trade secrets and that
Kassab knew that the confidential information and material he purchased from Favre was stolen.
Mr. Favre’s testimony regarding the paarties’ performance of the Favre–Kassab Agreement
provides additional support for Pohl’s contentions. In a hearing conducted on October 25, 2017
in Cause No. 1:14-cv-381-KS-JCG, Secott Walker, et al. v. Jimmy Williamson, et al., in the United
States District Court for the Sofuthern District of Mississippi, Southern Division (“Walker v.
Williamson Litigation”),27 Myr. Favre confirmed that Kassab, Montague or their firms had in fact
paid the $250,000 to FCavre.28 Mr. Favre testified that he did not sell attorney/client fee contracts
to Kassab and Mon a tague but instead gave them away to Nicholson.29 Mr. Favre acknowledged
that an email, fdfated December 7, 2016 and sent from Montague to Kassab and others, reflected
that Mr. FUavre had called to check that Kassab’s office had been receiving Dropbox deliveries of
27 A copy of the relevant portions of the October 25, 2017 hearing transcript in the Walker v. Williamson Litigation is
attached hereto and to the Amended Petition as Exhibit 2 to the Shepherd Affidavit.
28 Walker v. Williamson Litigation transcript, Exhibit 2 to Shepherd Affidavit at 63.
29 Id. at 92–93.
21
contracts over the last several days.30 Mr. Favre testified that between the time he received the
payment of $250,000 and April 2017, he had received no fees, provided no work and exchanged
no documents under the Favre–Kassab Agreement.31
Nicholson’s testimony contradicts Mr. Favre’s testimony in at least onke enlightening
way.32 Nicholson testified that Mr. Favre did not give her the Pohl fee conltracts; instead, she
believes he gave them to “one of her co-counsel in the Texas cases agcainst Mr. Pohl.”33 Mr.
Favre’s and Nicholson’s testimony and the emails about which they tsestify further support Pohl’s
prima facie case of intentional misappropriation, conversion sand conspiracy. The emails and
testimony confirm that Scott M. Favre, P.A. was in fact paid $250,000, and that Kassab and
Montague understood that they were to receive Dropbox deliveries of contracts. The large amount
of the payment to Favre, in advance of the delivery of contracts to the Dropbox and the absence of
any further work by Favre, supports a strong ainference that the payment was in fact in exchange
for the contracts and not for any future services. Mr. Favre’s testimony that he had given the
attorney/client fee contracts to Nichoelson and Nicholson’s disavowal of that testimony strongly
suggests that each witness hopesf to distance him or herself from the ultimate transfer to Kassab.
This contradiction supports Pyohl’s allegation that all parties to the Favre–Kassab Agreement knew
that the files and informCation being transferred had been converted or misappropriated.
As lawyers, Nicholson, Kassab, and Montague knew that the materials that were being
bought and soflfd included confidential information protected by the attorney–client privilege,
30 Id. at 95; see also email dated December 7, 2016, attached as Exhibit C to the Amended Petition.
31 Walker v. Williamson Litigation transcript, Exhibit 2 to Shepherd Affidavit at 121–27.
32 See Deposition of Tina Nicholson, dated November 27, 2017, attached as exhibit 5 to the Shepherd Affidavit at
65:11–66:10.
33 Id. at 66:7–9.
22
including actual attorney–client fee agreements.34 Mr. Favre has confirmed under oath that he
maintained the materials as confidential and protected them as valuable trade secrets.35
In sum, Pohl’s prima facie evidence in the form of both pleadings and affidavits
demonstrates each element of each of Pohl’s causes of action as set forth below: k
BREACH OF CONTRACT l
• Favre, Precision and Pohl entered into a binding agreemenct.36
• Pohl timely and fully performed that agreement.37 s
• Favre and Precision breached that agreement.38 s
• Pohl suffered damages.39 g
CONVERSION B
• The information and materials Deyfendants sold to Kassab was personal property
subject to conversion.40 a
• Pohl owned the informatiofn and materials Defendants sold.41
• Defendants wrongfully exercised dominion and control over the property.42
• Pohl has incurOred actual damages caused by Defendants’ conversion by at a
minimum hpis loss of the intrinsic value of the materials.43
34 Amended Petition ¶ 20.
35 See Affidavit off f Scott Favre, filed in Cause No. 1:14-cv-381-KS-JCG, Scott Walker, et al. v. Jimmy Williamson, et
al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, and attached as
Exhibit 7 to the Affidavit of Billy Shepherd.
36 Amended Petition ¶¶ 30, 31.
37 Amended Petition ¶ 35.
38 Amended Petition ¶¶ 32, 35.
39 Amended Petition ¶ 32, 35.
40 Amended Petition ¶¶ 20–21, 27; Favre-Kassab Agreement, Exhibit 3 to the Shepherd Affidavit; Email, Exhibit 4 to
the Shepherd Affidavit.
41 Amended Petition ¶¶ 20–21, 27, 38; Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶¶ 4–5.
42 Amended Petition ¶¶ 20, 21, 27; Declaration of Michael Pohl¶¶ 4–8.
43 Amended Petition ¶ 38; Favre Kassab Agreement, Exhibit 3 to Shepherd Affidavit (demonstrating that Kassab
placed a value on the materials of at least $250,000); Affidavit of Michael Pohl ¶¶ 5–7, 10, 12.
23
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS
• Pohl owned trade secrets.44
• Pohl maintained that information as a secret, taking substantial measures to
maintain its confidentiality.45 k
• The information has independent economic value from not beCin l g generally known
to, and not readily being ascertainable through proper mceans by, another person
who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or s use of the information.46
• Defendants misappropriated the trade secrets bsy participating in their sale with
knowledge that they had been acquired throgugh improper means—i.e., by theft.47
• The misappropriation damaged Pohl iBn the form of both actual loss and unjust
enrichment.48 y
• Defendants’ misappropriation a was willful and malicious.49
CONSPIRACY f
• Defendants were members of a combination of two or more persons.50
• The agreed objeOct of the combination was to accomplish the unlawful purposes of
conversion pand misappropriation of trade secrets.51
• Defendants and the other conspirators committed tortious overt acts to further the
objeict of the conspiracy.52
44 Amended Petition ¶¶ 20–21, 39; Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶¶ 4–5.
45 Amended Petition ¶ 39; Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶ 11.
46 Amended Petition ¶ 39; Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶ 12.
47 Amended Petition ¶¶ 40–41; Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶ 7.
48 Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶ 13.
49 Amended Petition ¶ 41; Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶¶ 5–8.
50 Amended Petition ¶¶ 33, 43.
51 Id. ¶ 43.
52 Id. ¶¶ 23, 27, 38, 43.
24
• Pohl suffered injury as a result.53
Pohl denies that Defendants have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
Pohl has asserted a legal action based on related to or in response to Defendants’ exercise of rights
to free speech, petition, or association. To the extent that the Court disagrees, Pokhl has provided
clear and specific evidence to support his petition, and the Court should denyC Dlefendants’ Motion.
5. Defendants cannot conclusively establish the defense ocf limitations.
Defendants argue that, even though Pohl may be able to establish a prima facie case, they
are still entitled to dismissal because they can establish by a prseponderance of the evidence each
essential element of the affirmative defense of limitations. This defense is not available, and
Defendants have not established it—let alone by a preponderance of the evidence.
The parties entered the Settlement Agreement in April and May 2017. Limitations for
breach of contract is four years. TEX. CIV. PaRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.051; Stine v. Stewart, 80
S.W.3d 586, 592 (Tex. 2002). The breach of contract claim is not time-barred.
As to the remainder of the claiems against Defendants, Kassab purchased the stolen material
from the Defendants by virtue of tfhe Favre–Kassab Agreement, which was executed on November
10, 2016, well under two yeayrs prior to the filing of this suit. Pohl’s claims against Defendants are
based on that purchase,C and no claim has a limitations period of less than two years. See TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.003(a) (two-year limitation period for conversion); TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 1f6.010(a) (three-year limitation period for TUTSA violations); Mayes v. Stewart,
316 S.W.U3d 715, 719 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Defendants contend that limitations bars this action because they engaged in wrongful
conduct more than four years ago. See Motion at 13–15. But, the Amended Petition makes clear
53 Amended Petition ¶ 43; Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶ 14.
25
that the wrongful conduct to which they refer is not the basis of this lawsuit. Furthermore, Pohl
was not aware of the claims in this case in the two year period prior to the filing of this case.
Declaration of Michael Pohl ¶ 9. Defendant has not established the defense of limitations and their
Motion to dismiss cannot be granted on that ground. k
C. Defendants Are Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees l
Defendants are not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees becausec their Motion should be
overruled. Furthermore, Defendants fail entirely to support their cslaim for fees. Defendants’
Motion mentions attorney’s fees precisely once. In the final ssentence, Defendants requests an
award of fees. Defendants provides no argument, and more to the point no evidentiary support for
an award of attorneys’ fees. Without an affidavit or other evidence proving the expenditure of fees
and the amount, the Court should decline to award fees in any amount. See Sullivan v. Abraham,
488 S.W.3d 294, 299–300 (Tex. 2016) (movaant has the burden of proof on fees, “‘includ[ing], at
a minimum, documentation of the services performed, who performed them and at what hourly
rate, when they were performed, ande how much time the work required.’” (citation omitted)). In
the absence of such proof, the Cofurt is not empowered to award fees.
y CONCLUSION
For the foregoiCng reasons, Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl
respectfully request that the Motion be in all respects denied.
26
Dated: December 26, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
Jean C. Frizzell
State Bar No. 07484650 k
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e
Houston, Texas 77002 l
Tel. 713.485.7200
Fax 713.485.7250 c
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom
Attorneys for PlaintiDffs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERrVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 26th day of December, 2018.
M /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
 Jean C. Frizzell
27"
9,2018-11-01,RSP,Pohl,Pohl’s response opposing TCPA MTD,Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's TCPA Motion to Dismiss,"Filed November 1, 2018 in response to Kassab's October 24, 2018 TCPA Motion to Dismiss. Pohl opposes dismissal on three grounds: (1) the TCPA does not apply to his claims, (2) even if it did, the commercial speech exception bars application, and (3) Pohl has established a prima facie case. Includes alternative motion for continuance and discovery. Filed in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.",TCPA-1,N/A,Phase 1,2018-11-01_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-MTD-TCPA_FILED.pdf,"Deny the TCPA Motion to Dismiss in all respects; award Pohl costs and fees of $33,352; alternatively, grant continuance and permit discovery under §§ 27.004(c) and 27.006(b)","11/1/2018 7:18 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 28744115
By: Deandra Mosley
Filed: 11/1/2018 7:18 PM
CAUSE NO. 2018-58419
MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, §
Plaintiffs, §
V. § k
§ e
SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l
LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c
LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r
THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s
NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, §
LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s
FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s
MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., §
Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL’S
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CITlIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT
Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfices of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) respond
in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance
Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”). Kassab’s Motion
to Dismiss (the “Motion”) purports to find its basis in the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEo § 27.001 et. seq. (“TCPA”), but as set forth below the TCPA does not
apply to Pohl’s claims, and even if it did, the Motion would fail.
c I.
INTRODUCTION
Kassab paid $250,000 to obtain the stolen names, addresses, and in some instances actual
client files of Pohl’s former clients and potential clients so that Kassab could solicit those clients
to assert barratry claims. Kassab attempted to disguise the purchase as the engagement of a
putative “expert witness,” whom he agreed to indemnify in the event that Pohl asserted claims for
the theft. Now that Pohl has asserted the anticipated claims, Kassab asks the Court to hold that his
actions and communications in purchasing and using the stolen materials are protected by the
TCPA.
Despite having advocated directly inconsistent positions regarding the kTCPA in other
litigation with Pohl in front of this Court, Kassab brought a meritless Motionl.1 In an attempt to
contort the application of the TCPA and delay this lawsuit, Kassab assercts that the TCPA applies
to Pohl’s causes of action for conversion of confidential information asnd misappropriation of trade
secrets because of the purported motivation behind the assertions of those claims. The TCPA does
not apply because of a defendant’s mere assertion of the motivation for the filing of a claim;
instead, courts consider only whether the factual bases for a claim implicate the statutory
protections. Otherwise, every defendant could simply claim—as Kassab has done here without
evidence—that a particular case had been filead in retaliation for an action protected by the TCPA
and invoke the entire process. 
Instead, a court must examinee the claims that are asserted. Pohl’s claims in no way target
Kassab for the exercise of any rigfhts of free speech, petition, or association. Pohl brings claims to
hold Kassab responsible for yhis wrongful conversion of Pohl’s information and misappropriation
of trade secrets, togethCer with his participation in a conspiracy to commit both torts. The claims
on their face do not implicate the TCPA, and the inquiry should end there.
Perhapsf fbecause the factual bases of Pohl’s claims so clearly do not implicate the TCPA,
Kassab exUpends much time and effort attempting to reframe those claims as acts of retaliation for
Kassab’s actions after he committed the torts for which Pohl sues. More specifically, Kassab
1 See generally Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss, Dezzie Brumfield d/b/a LAD
Enterprises, et al., v. Law Offices of Michael Pohl, et al., No. 2017-38294 (189th Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex. Sept.
29, 2017) (filed by the Kassab firm), attached as Exhibit 1 to the affidavit of Billy Shepherd (“Shepherd Affidavit”),
which is attached as Exhibit A to this Response.
contends that Pohl brought tort claims against Kassab not because Kassab stole confidential and
trade secret information and materials but because of what Kassab did with those materials after
he stole them. Kassab has the burden of demonstrating the applicability of the TCPA by a
preponderance of the evidence. See LFMC Enterprises, LLC v. Baker, 546 S.W. 3dk 893, 897 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). Kassab offers no evidence of alny kind to support
his contention that the lawsuit is retaliatory. Kassab’s failure to sustain hics burden of proof is fatal
to his Motion. s
Moreover, even if the TCPA jurisprudence permitted tshis type of exercise, and even if
Kassab had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the purported motivations for
Pohl’s suit implicated one of Kassab’s rights protected by the statute, Kassab’s claim under the
TCPA would nevertheless fail. If, as Kassab contends, Pohl sued Kassab because “Kassab legally
and ethically contacted Pohl’s former clients aor prospective clients and filed suit against Pohl on
behalf of these individuals,”2 then Pohl’s suit would be exempt from the TCPA by virtue of the
commercial exception to that statute. e TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.010(b). Because Kassab
was at all times acting as a persofn primarily engaged in the business of selling his services as an
attorney, his contacts with Pyohl’s clients and former clients to solicit them to bring barratry suits
fall squarely within theC commercial exception to the statute. Kassab’s actions in filing a grievance
against Pohl also fall within the commercial exception and are not protected by the TCPA. It is
apparent on thef f face of the grievance itself—which Kassab attached to his Motion even though it
is designaUted by the State Bar as “strictly confidential3—that Kassab uses the State Bar grievance
mechanism as a part of his litigation strategy.4
2 Motion at 15.
3 See Grievance, attached as Exhibit 21 to the Motion, at 6 (“Disciplinary Proceedings are strictly confidential”).
4 See id. at 8, n. 1 (Kassab describes his history of filing grievances in connection with civil lawsuits).
Although it is clear that the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, Pohl fully sets forth his
prima facie case for each element of his causes of action. The pleadings and the affidavits Pohl
supplies can leave no question that he has satisfied the second prong of the TCPA analysis.
Kassab argues but fails to conclusively establish the affirmative defensesk that he asserts
entitle him to dismissal. Limitations has not run even as of today. The attorneyl immunity doctrine
does not apply to conduct undertaken outside the scope of representing ac client. And res judicata
does not apply in these circumstances to bar the claims. s
Finally, Pohl is entitled to his fees and costs in respondsing to Kassab’s Motion. Kassab
clearly knew upon filing the Motion that it would fail, given his experience on the opposite side
of the issue in this very Court.
II.
ARGaUMENT
A. KASSAB’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED
The Texas Legislature enaceted the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”) “to
encourage and safeguard the confstitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate
freely, and otherwise particiypate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at
the same time, protect Cthe rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury.”
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.002 (emphasis added). The TCPA is intended to identify and
dispose of lawsfufits that are “designed to chill First Amendment Rights, not to dismiss meritorious
lawsuits.”U In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 589 (Tex. 2015).
“Courts use a ‘two-step procedure to expedite the dismissal of claims brought to intimidate
or to silence a defendant’s exercise of these First Amendment rights.’” Wayne Dolcefino &
Dolcefino Communications, LLC v. Cypress Creek EMS, 540 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (quoting ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895,
898 (Tex. 2017)). The first step of the TCPA analysis requires that the movant establish by “a
preponderance of evidence that the suit he is seeking to dismiss ‘is based on, relates to, or is in
response to the [movant’s] exercise of: (1) the right of free speech; (2) the right tok petition; or (3)
the right of association.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting TEX. CIV. P CRAlC. & REM. CODE §
27.003). c
If the movant sustains its burden of demonstrating by a preponsderance of the evidence that
the claims fall within the ambit of the TCPA, and only then, thse court turns to the second step in
the process. That step shifts the burden to the non-movant to provide by clear and specific evidence
a prima facie case supporting the elements of its claim.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(c).
In examining whether a plaintiff has sustained its burden of demonstrating a prima facie case, a
court is obligated to consider “the pleadings aand supporting and opposing affidavits stating the
facts on which the liability or defense is based.” Id. § 27.006(a). A prima facie case is established
when the pleadings and evidence suppely the “‘minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support
a rational inference that the allegfation of fact is true.’” In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 590 (quoting
In re E.I DuPont de Nemourys & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Tex. 2004)).
As set forth belCow, neither of the two prongs of the TCPA is satisfied here, and Kassab’s
Motion should be denied.
1. fPohl’s allegations on their face do not implicate the TCPA
PoUhl asserts three claims against Kassab in his Original Petition: (1) conversion, (2)
violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”), and (3) civil conspiracy. Original
Petition at 9–11. To determine whether Kassab has met the preponderance of the evidence
standard, the Court should start with the petition to determine the basis of the legal action. Hersh
v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. 2017) (the “basis of a legal action is not determined by the
defendant’s admissions or denials but by the plaintiff’s allegations”). Courts “do not blindly accept
attempts by the [defendants] to characterize [plaintiff’s] claims as implicating protected
expression.” Sloat v. Rathbun, 513 S.W.3d 500, 504 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015k, pet. dism’d).
Instead, courts should “favor[] the conclusion that [the plaintiff’s] claims arel not predicated on
protected expression.” Id. Further, “any activities by the [defendantsc] that are not a factual
predicate for [the plaintiff’s] claims are simply not pertinent to the insquiry.” Id.
Although Kassab baldly asserts that Pohl’s claims were bsrought “in retaliation” for certain
of his actions and that Pohl has somehow admitted as much, the Court may not “blindly accept”
that characterization of Pohl’s allegations. Instead, the Court must keep in mind that there needs
to “be a connection between the claims in the lawsuit and the alleged protected conduct.” Wayne
Dolcefino, 540 S.W.3d at 201. The Court muast view the evidence “in the light most favorable to
the nonmovant.” Id. at 199. In sum, the Court’s inquiry should be (1) what the factual bases for
Pohl’s claims are, based on the pleadeings and evidence viewed in the light most favorable to him,
and (2) the extent to which these ffactual bases, as a matter of law, are protected expression within
the TCPA’s definition. Sloayt, 513 S.W.3d at 504.
As the pleadingCs make clear, Pohl sues Kassab for conversion because Kassab knowingly
purchased confiden a tial information and materials that were stolen from Pohl.5 Kassab’s liability
for this wrongffufl conduct is not based on facts related to the exercise of the rights of free speech,
petition, Uor association. Instead, his liability is based on his knowing and intentional acts of
conversion and theft of trade secrets.
5 See Original Petition at ¶¶ 4, 30, 31, 32, 33.
Similarly, Pohl’s TUTSA claim is based on the same underlying conduct as the conversion
claim, except it is limited to conduct related to the stolen trade secrets.6 For the same reasons as
above, the factual basis of liability for this claim does not trigger protections under the TCPA.
Pohl’s conspiracy claim involves Kassab’s and the other Defendants’ ovkert acts in their
plan to steal and misappropriate Pohl’s trade secrets and other proprietary informlation.7 Yet again,
nothing in the factual basis of liability for this claim is based on or targetsc Kassab for the exercise
of the rights of free speech, petition, or association. s
For all three of Pohl’s claims against Kassab, the thesory of liability is predicated on
wrongful acts, not protected speech or conduct. The lawsuit was brought to vindicate Pohl’s rights,
not in retaliation for any TCPA protected conduct. The pleadings and evidence which the Court
must use to determine if the TCPA applies makes this clear. The Texas Supreme Court has held
that the petition is the “best and all-sufficient eavidence of the nature of the action.” Hersh v. Tatum,
526 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples, 95 S.W.2d 1300, 1302
(Tex. Comm’n App. 1936)), and Pohel’s Original Petition establishes that the nature of the action
does not implicate the TCPA. f
2. Kassab has nyot sustained his burden of demonstrating the applicability of the
TCPA to Pohl’s Claims.
As the movant, Kassab has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
Pohl’s claims arec “based on, relate[] to, or [are] in response to [Kassab]’s exercise of” some
protected sp
eech or act. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b). As set forth above, Pohl’s
claims on their face do not support Kassab’s invocation of the TCPA. Given that the claims do
not clearly fall within the statute, Kassab is required to show a “connection between the claims in
6 See id. ¶¶ 34–37.
7 See id. ¶ 38.
the lawsuit and the alleged protected conduct.” Wayne Dolcefino, 540 S.W.3d at 201. And Kassab
must demonstrate that the protected conduct on which Kassab relies must be connected to the
“facts on which the liability or defense is based.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.006(a).
In spite of the substantial volume of “evidence” he filed in support of his Mkotion, Kassab
has supplied no evidence—much less a preponderance of the evidence—that lPohl’s lawsuit was
asserted solely or even partly in retaliation for any act or communicatcion protected under the
TCPA. Instead, Kassab resorts to asserting (without support) thats he knows the reasons and
motivations for Pohl’s claims in this suit and that the suit wass motivated by Kassab’s protected
speech and actions.8 Courts have explicitly rejected this very tactic, holding that a defendant
cannot rely on a purported motivation for bringing a claim to support a motion to dismiss under
the TCPA. See Sloat, 513 S.W.3d at 504 (rejecting the defendant’s effort to “recast [the Plaintiff’s]
petition as complaining principally” of actioans of protest instead of the actions on which the
petition was based). 
Kassab’s mere allegation thate the suit is retaliatory is not enough to make it so. Perhaps
recognizing this problem, Kassabf asserts that “Pohl has judicially admitted that he has brought his
suit against Kassab solely beycause Kassab legally and ethically contacted Pohl’s former clients or
prospective clients anCd filed suit against Pohl on behalf of these individuals.”9 Kassab cites
language in Pohl’s Original Petition alleging that “Kassab solicited clients/ prospective clients [of
Pohl’s] to act afsf Plaintiffs. . . . to bring cases against Pohl for alleged barratry and other claims.”10
This quotUation from Pohl’s Original Petition does not constitute a judicial admission of anything,
much less an admission concerning the motivating force behind Pohl’s suit. Pohl’s recitation of
8 See, e.g., Motion at 1, 19, 21.
9 See id. at 15.
10 Id. (alterations in original).
true facts regarding Kassab’s actions—facts that Kassab has acknowledged—is not enough to
show a connection between the claims Pohl has alleged and Kassab’s protected conduct. See
Wayne Dolcefino, 540 S.W.3d at 201.
In various places in his Motion, Kassab cites to Pohl’s Original Petitionk purportedly in
support of his argument that Pohl’s motive was retaliatory, but those citatiolns do not support
Kassab’s conclusion. Instead, the portions of Pohl’s Original Petition Kascsab cites simply set forth
Kassab’s actions, without mentioning a “motive” for bringing suit. As fair reading of the petition
in the light most favorable to Pohl does not support Kassab’s chsaracterization of these additional
factual allegations. See Sloat, 513 S.W.3d at 507 (rejecting attempts to recharacterize every factual
allegation in a petition as providing the basis for a claim); see also LFMC Enterprises, LLC v.
Baker, 546 S.W.3d 893, 898 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (requiring that
the defendant demonstrate the specific connecation between the plaintiff’s claim and the protected
right). 
Kassab provides no support eat all to his theory that Pohl’s suit is tied to any grievance
Kassab may have filed. Pohl’s Ofriginal Petition does not even mention any grievance, much less
make a claim in any way relyating to a grievance. Kassab has no basis at all on which to contend
that the grievance is inC any way related to Pohl’s case.
Kassab’s wholesale failure to support by a preponderance of the evidence his position that
the TCPA applfifes is fatal to his Motion. The Court should deny the Motion on that basis alone.
3.U Even if the TCPA otherwise applies, the commercial exception precludes
dismissal here.
Kassab contorts Pohl’s claims in his effort to assert that they fall within the TCPA. To the
extent, if any, that Kassab succeeds in that effort, the recharacterized claims would fall directly
within the commercial exception to the TCPA. Although Kassab cannot show that any TCPA
protected speech or conduct is connected to Pohl’s claims—as required by the TCPA—even if a
connection could be shown, the speech and conduct would fall within the commercial speech
exception in the statute. The TCPA provides an exception to its general applicability:
This chapter does not apply to a legal action brought against a person pkrimarily
engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, if the steatement or
conduct arises out of the sale or lease of goods, services, or an insuranlce product,
insurance services, or a commercial transaction in which the intended audience is
an actual or potential buyer or customer. c
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.010(b). The Texas Supreme Csourt has interpreted this as
requiring the following four-part test: s 
(1) the defendant was primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods
[or services], (2) the defendant made the statemernt or engaged in the conduct on
which the claim is based in the defendant’s capacity as a seller or lessor of those
goods or services, (3) the statement or conduct at issue arose out of a commercial
transaction involving the kind of goods or services the defendant provides, and (4)
the intended audience of the statemenlt or conduct were actual or potential
customers of the defendant for the kinda of goods or services the defendant provides.
Castleman v. Internet Money Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. 2018).
As set forth above, Kassab repeeatedly insists that Pohl’s claims were brought in retaliation
for Kassab’s stealing Pohl’s propferty and soliciting his former clients and prospective clients to
file barratry claims and grievyances. See, e.g., Motion at 2, 19–21, 25–26. Kassab’s solicitation of
Pohl’s clients and formCer clients falls squarely within the commercial exception to the TCPA. See
Miller Weisbrod, L.L.P. v. Llamas-Soforo, 511 S.W.3d 181, 191 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no
pet.) (attorney fafdvertising falls within the commercial exception to the TCPA). Where a lawyer
is primarUily engaged in selling legal services to clients, and the speech arises from the sale of
services where the audience is an actual or potential client, the solicitation falls outside the TCPA’s
protections. See NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze v. Bagby, P.L.L.C., 745 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2014)
(applying Texas law).
10
It is beyond dispute that Kassab is primarily engaged in the business of selling legal
services. He purchased Pohl’s list of clients and former clients, together with the attorney fee
contracts for the purpose of soliciting those clients. In his capacity as a provider of legal services,
Kassab advertised and sought out Pohl’s potential and former clients. The akdvertising and
solicitation were part of a commercial transaction involving Kassab’s effolrt to provide legal
services. The advertising and solicitation was directed at potential custcomers of Kassab’s legal
services. Kassab’s solicitation of Pohl’s clients and former clientss is commercial speech and
outside the protections of the TCPA. In fact, Kassab has tasken this position himself in his
representation in another case.11
To the extent that the Court is convinced by Kassab’s effort to reframe Pohl’s Original
Petition as retaliation for Kassab’s actions in contacting and soliciting Pohl’s clients and former
clients, Kassab’s Motion nevertheless fails. Kaassab’s actions were entirely commercial in nature
and fall squarely within the commercial exception to the TCPA.
Kassab further contends thate Pohl’s suit is brought in retaliation for Kassab’s filing of
barratry suits and grievances agaifnst Pohl. As an initial matter, Kassab’s filings do not implicate
Kassab’s protected rights; thyey instead implicate the protected rights of Kassab’s clients, who are
not parties here. See CLFMC Enterprises, LLC v. Baker, 546 S.W.3d 893, 898 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (requiring that the rights being protected be the rights of the
party, and not af f third party to the action). Without an assertion of Kassab’s own protected rights,
the TCPAU is not implicated.
In addition, the commercial exception should extend to an attorney’s action in filing a
lawsuit on behalf of another. The attorney’s purpose in that instance is undeniably commercial—
11 See Brumfield Litigation Plaintiffs’ Response, Exhibit 1 to the Shepherd Affidavit, Exhibit A, at 22.
11
as Kassab’s clearly was in bringing the barratry actions. The statute creates an exception for
commercial activity that should apply to an attorney’s actions in pursuit of a client’s case. The
grievance against Pohl also falls within the commercial exception because Kassab’s use of the
State Bar grievance process is as a tactic to increase pressure on the lawyers that hke sues.12
At the end of his unsupported argument that the TCPA applies to Pohll’s claims, Kassab
discusses two cases. Motion at 19–21 (discussing Collins v. Collins, No.c 01-17-00817-CV, 2018
WL 1320841 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 15, 2018, pet. filsed) (mem. op.) and Reeves v.
Harbor Am. Cent., Inc., 552 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App.—Housston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.)).
Neither case is supportive of Kassab’s position. The court in Collins addressed whether the right
to petition required a nexus to a matter of public concern. Collins, 2018 WL 1320841 at *2. The
lawsuit itself in Collins was factually predicted on claim that a party filed a fraudulent affidavit in
a divorce proceeding. Id. a
The Reeves case is similarly unhelpful. The court in that case simply held that the trial
court was required to conduct a TCPAe analysis as required by the statute and could not summarily
conclude that “[t]he [TCPA] asf a matter of law does not allow a party to avoid contractual
obligations such as the onesy at issue here.” Reeves, 552 S.W.3d at 392. The court remanded the
case to the trial court tCo conduct a full TCPA analysis. Id. at 396. Pohl does not deny that this
Court should conduct a TCPA analysis; instead Pohl asserts that that the TCPA does not apply and
that Kassab hasf f failed to carry his burden under prong one of the TCPA.
12 See Grievance, attached as Exhibit 21 to the Motion, at 8, n. 1 (Kassab describes his history of filing grievances in
connection with civil lawsuits).
12
4. There is clear and specific evidence demonstrating a prima facie case.
Kassab’s failure to satisfy the first prong of a motion pursuant to the TCPA relieves Pohl
of any burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of his claims. Pohl nevertheless sets forth below
the clear and specific evidence in his pleading and the attached affidavits for eachk element of the
claims he has asserted against Kassab.13 l
Pohl asserts three causes of action against Kassab: (1) conversicon; (2) violations of the
Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Cshap. 134A (“TUTSA”); and
(3) conspiracy to commit conversion and to violate TUTSA. Thes elements of the conversion claim,
as asserted in the Original Petition against Kassab, are that (a) Pohl owned and owns certain
property and information; (b) Kassab purchased that information knowing that it had been stolen
from Pohl; and (c) Kassab wrongfully exercised dominion and control over Pohl’s property in
contravention of Pohl’s rights. The elements aof a violation of TUTSA against Kassab are that (a)
Kassab purchased Pohl’s trade secrets knowing that they had been acquired by improper means;
and (b) and knowing that he did neot have Pohl’s express or implied consent. Finally, the
conspiracy claim alleges that Kfassab acted in combination with the other defendants and
committed overt acts towardy unlawful conversion and misappropriation.
In examining wChether a plaintiff has sustained its burden of demonstrating a prima facie
case, the Court is obligated to consider “the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits
stating the factfsf on which the liability or defense is based.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
27.006(a)U. Where a plaintiff provides enough detail in his pleading to “show the factual basis for
its claim,” such a pleading “is sufficient to resist a TCPA motion to dismiss.” In re Lipsky, 460
S.W.3d 579, 591 (Tex. 2015). A prima facie case is established when the pleadings and evidence
13 In support of this Response, Pohl has attached three sworn documents, the affidavit of Billy Shepherd, Exhibit A;
the declaration of Michael Pohl, Exhibit B; and the declaration of Jean C. Frizzell, Exhibit C.
13
supply the “‘minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the
allegation of fact is true.’” Id. at 590 (quoting from In re E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136
S.W.3d 218, 223 (Tex. 2004)).
Pohl’s pleading—the Original Petition—sets forth in abundant detaikl each of the
allegations against Kassab. Pohl alleges that he hired defendant Precision Marlketing Group, LLC
(“Precision”) to assist him in gathering and preserving evidence and liaicse with Pohl’s clients.14
Precision thereby gained access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietarsy information relating to his
client’s identity and contact information as well as his engagsement agreements, contacts with
clients and various of Pohl’s proprietary forms.15 Pohl alleges that Defendants Precision and Scott
Favre, with the assistance of Defendant Tina Nicholson, stole physical copies of certain
information, stole Pohl’s computers, and misappropriated electronic data to which they had access
through Precision’s work for Pohl, includinga actual attorney–client fee agreements protected by
the attorney–client privilege.16 Precision and Favre entered into a settlement agreement with Pohl
in which they agreed to return to Poehl or delete the confidential and proprietary information in
their possession, custody and conftrol.17
Precision and Favre hyad secretly entered into an agreement with Kassab and defendants F.
Douglas Montague III Cand Montague Pittman & Varnado, P.A. (collectively, “Montague”) to sell
Pohl’s stolen confid a ential information and property.18 Kassab and Montague paid Favre $250,000,
together with sfufbstantial bonuses knowing that they purchased stolen information and property.19
These spUecific, detailed allegations of each element of conversion, theft of trade secrets, and
14 Original Petition at ¶¶ 19, 20.
15 Id. ¶ 20.
16 Id. ¶ ¶ 20, 21.
17 Id. ¶ 3.
18 Id. ¶ 21.
19 Id.
14
conspiracy are by themselves sufficient to set forth a prima facie case meeting the requirements of
the TCPA. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(a); see also Hicks v. Group & Pension
Administrators, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 518, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015, no pet.).
Although Pohl’s Original Petition establishes a prima facie case without thke necessity for
further inquiry, Pohl also submits affidavits containing substantial prima facie elvidence supporting
those claims. As an initial matter, Kassab has admitted certain factual acspects of Pohl’s claims.
Kassab states in his Declaration: s
Upon learning of the Mississippi Litigation, I and staff ats my office obtained a large
amount of information related to the Mississippi Litigastion from the federal court’s
online public access to court records system, PACER. I also met with Scott Favre
(“Favre”), who I understood became the owner of Prrecision Marketing Group, LLC
(“Precision Marketing”) through a purchase agreement he had with the prior
owners. Favre and his counsel, Tina Nicholson (“Nicholson”) provided me with
information from Precision Marketing’s files, including the names and addresses
of Pohl’s former clients or prospective clilents.
See Declaration of Lance Christopher KassMab, attached as Exhibit 1 to his Motion. Kassab freely
admits that he obtained from Favre and Favre’s counsel, Tina Nicholson, information that included
the names and addresses of Pohl’s former clients and prospective clients. Kassab has also
admitted, at least implicitly, that he paid Favre. In a pleading filed in Cause No. 2017-38294,
Debbie Brumfield d/b/a Lad Enterprises, et. Al. v. Jimmy Williamson, Jimmy Williamson, PC,
Williamson & Rusnak, Cyndi Rusnak, Cyndi Rusnak PLLC, and Law Offices of Michael Pohl, in
the 189th Judiciacl District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “Brumfield Litigation”), Kassab
stated,
Prior to the settlement, however, Favre was hired by the undersigned counsel [i.e.
Kassab] and a Mississippi law firm to provide consulting services regarding the
value of any underlying claim against BP.20
20 See Brumfield Litigation Plaintiffs’ Response, Exhibit 1 to the Shepherd Affidavit, Exhibit A, at 18.
15
On a separate occasion, Kassab described his arrangement with Favre differently, as “an agreement
with an expert witness.”21
Kassab does not deny that he (1) obtained from Favre and Precision the confidential
information and materials that are the subject of Pohl’s conversion and misappropkriation of trade
secrets claims, and (2) that he entered into an agreement with Favre pursuant tol which Kassab paid
Favre. Given these admissions, many aspects of Pohl’s prima facie ccase are uncontroverted.
Kassab has admitted that he acquired the “names and addresses sof Pohl’s former clients or
prospective clients,” which provides prima facie support for ksey elements of Pohl’s claims of
conversion and theft of trade secrets.
The attached affidavits provide prima facie evidence of the following facts. Scott Favre,
PA LLC, the Kassab Law Firm and Montague, Pittman and Varnado, P.A. entered into an
Agreement, dated November 10, 2016, eaxecuted by Lance Kassab (the “Favre–Kassab
Agreement”).22 The Favre–Kassab Agreement contains many relevant provisions, including:
• That Kassab and Montague weill pay Favre an hourly rate of $250, a large per-case fee,
and an “upfront advancef pay retainer to Favre forin [sic] the amount of $250,000 to be
credited against firsyt fees earned by Favre. This retainer is fully earned at the time of
payment and isC not refundable. Subsequent hourly fees are not to be credited against the
retainer.”23a
• That Kfassab and Montague “shall indemnify and hold harmless Favre for from [sic] any
aUnd all costs he incurs in defending claims relating to an/or arising from the disclosure of
any client information where such claims are asserted by . . . Michael Pohl. . . . Favre
21 See Kassab’s Letter, dated July 20, 2018, to Timothy J. Baldwin, attached as part of Exhibit 21 to Kassab’s Motion.
22 A copy of the Favre–Kassab Agreement is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Shepherd Affidavit, Exhibit A.
23 See Favre-Kassab Agreement, Exhibit 3 to the Shepherd Affidavit, Exhibit A, p. 1.
16
certifies that he is not aware of any contractual or legal provision that prohibits him from
making such disclosure to [Kassab and Montague]”24
• That the parties “agree that this Agreement is confidential and shall remain confidential
for all times.”25 k
On its face, the Favre–Kassab Agreement proves that Kassab agreed to payC Flavre an enormous
upfront payment of $250,000, together with substantial sums over timce. The amount of the
payment alone is prima facie evidence that Kassab knew that the confidential information and
material he was buying was not publicly known and that it belosnged to Pohl.
The Favre–Kassab Agreement also obligates Kassab to indemnify Favre from claims that
Pohl might bring—making clear that Kassab contemplated that Pohl might assert such claims at
the time he executed the agreement. What possible reason could there be for Kassab to agree to
indemnify if Favre owned the materials and inaformation that was the subject of the Favre–Kassab
Agreement? Why would indemnity be necessary if the information and materials were publicly
known? Again, these facts support Peohl’s prima facie case of misappropriation.
Similarly, the requiremefnt in the Favre–Kassab Agreement that the parties keep the
agreement confidential suggyests that the parties understood that disclosure of the existence of the
agreement and its termCs might raise substantial issues. If the materials and information were
publicly known and belonged to Favre, what was the necessity for confidentiality? Each of these
facts supports fPohl’s allegation that the materials and information were trade secrets and that
Kassab kUnew that the confidential information and material he purchased from Favre was stolen.
Favre’s testimony regarding the parties’ performance of the Favre–Kassab Agreement
provides additional support for Pohl’s contentions. In a hearing conducted on October 25, 2017
24 Id. p. 3.
25 Id.
17
in Cause No. 1:14-cv-381-KS-JCG, Scott Walker, et al. v. Jimmy Williamson, et al., in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division (“Walker v.
Williamson Litigation”),26 Favre confirmed that Kassab, Montague or their firms had in fact paid
the $250,000 to Scott M. Favre, P.A.27 Favre testified that he did not sell attokrney/client fee
contracts to Kassab and Montague but instead gave them away to Tina Nlicholson.28 Favre
acknowledged that an email, dated December 7, 2016 and sent from Mcontague to Kassab and
others, reflected that Favre had called to check that Kassab’s office shad been receiving Dropbox
deliveries of contracts over the last several days.29 Favre testifieds that between the time he received
the payment of $250,000 and April 2017, he had received no fees, provided no work and
exchanged no documents under the Favre–Kassab Agreement.30
Nicholson’s testimony contradicts Favre’s testimony in at least one enlightening way.31
Nicholson testified that Favre did not give hera the Pohl fee contracts; instead, she believes he gave
them to “one of her co-counsel in the Texas cases against Mr. Pohl.”32 Favre’s and Nicholson’s
testimony and the emails about whiech they testify further support Pohl’s prima facie case of
intentional misappropriation, confversion and conspiracy. The emails and testimony confirm that
Scott M. Favre, P.A. was iny fact paid $250,000, and that Kassab and Montague understood that
they were to receive DCropbox deliveries of contracts. The large amount of the payment to Scott
26 A copy of the relevant portions of the October 25, 2017 hearing transcript in the Walker v. Williamson Litigation
is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to the Shepherd Affidavit.
27 Walker v. Williamson Litigation transcript, Exhibit 2 to Shepherd Affidavit at 63.
28 Id. at 92–93.
29 Id. at 95; see also email dated December 7, 2016, attached as Exhibit 4 to the Shepherd Affidavit. To the extent, if
any, that Kassab suggests that this email may be hearsay and therefore inadmissible, Pohl responds that the email is
not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is instead offered to demonstrate Kassab’s knowledge of the volume
and nature of the materials Favre transmitted.
30 Walker v. Williamson Litigation transcript, Exhibit 2 to Shepherd Affidavit at 121–27.
31 See Deposition of Tina Nicholson, dated November 27, 2017, attached as exhibit 5 to the Shepherd Affidavit at
65:11–66:10.
32 Id. at 66:7–9.
18
M. Favre, P.A., in advance of the delivery of contracts to the Dropbox and the absence of any
further work by Scott M. Favre, P.A., supports a strong inference that the payment was in fact in
exchange for the contracts and not for any future services. Favre’s testimony that he had given the
attorney/client fee contracts to Nicholson and Nicholson’s disavowal of that testkimony strongly
suggests that each witness hopes to distance him or herself from the ultimate ltransfer to Kassab.
This contradiction supports Pohl’s allegation that all parties to the Favre–Kcassab Agreement knew
that the files and information being transferred had been converted ors misappropriated.
Finally, Kassab’s efforts to explain the purpose of thse Favre–Kassab Agreement also
support Pohl’s prima facie case that Kassab knew that the material and information he received
from Favre was stolen. As described above, Kassab explained the Favre–Kassab Agreement to
this Court as reflecting Favre being hired “to provide consulting services.”33 More recently,
Kassab described the agreement as constitutinga “an agreement with an expert witness.”34 Kassab’s
inability to stick to an explanation of the agreement suggests that he does not have a legitimate
one. The notion that the Favre–Kasseab Agreement constitutes the retention of an expert witness
defies all logic. At the time Kassfab purportedly hired Favre, who is not a lawyer, as an “expert,”
Kassab did not have a singlye client, much less a case. Without known clients, Favre could not
possibly have ethicallyC been engaged as an expert because he could not have determined the
presence of potential conflicts. And even though Kassab had no clients and Favre is not a lawyer,
Kassab paid Ffafvre $250,000 up front with the promise of additional future payments. The
evidence Udemonstrates that the stolen materials and information were available for sale.35 In fact,
Favre and his counsel Nicholson had expressly threatened to sell the materials to “Texas barratry
33 See Response to Motion in Brumfield, Exhibit 1 to the Shepherd Affidavit, Exhibit A at 18.
34 See Letter in support of Grievance, attached as part of Exhibit 21 to the Motion.
35 See Five Letters discussing potential sale of information, attached as Exhibit 6 to the Affidavit of Billy Shepherd.
19
lawyers” before they actually did so.36 The more plausible explanation of these facts is that the
Favre–Kassab Agreement reflects Favre’s sale and Kassab’s knowing purchase of Pohl’s stolen
files.
As lawyers, Kassab and Montague knew that the materials they purckhased included
confidential information protected by the attorney–client privilege, includinlg actual attorney–
client fee agreements.37 Scott Favre has confirmed under oath that he macintained the materials as
confidential and protected them as valuable trade secrets.38 s
In sum, Pohl’s prima facie evidence in the form osf both pleadings and affidavits
demonstrates each element of each of Pohl’s causes of action as set forth below:
CONVERSION
• The information and materials Kassab obtained was personal property subject to
conversion.39 a
• Pohl owned the information and materials Kassab obtained.40
• Kassab wrongfully ex e ercised dominion and control over the property.41
• Pohl has incurreOd f actual damages caused by Kassab’s conversion by at a minimum
his loss of the intrinsic value of the materials.42
36 Id.
37 Id. ¶ 20.
38 See Affidavit of Scott Favre, filed in Cause No. 1:14-cv-381-KS-JCG, Scott Walker, et al. v. Jimmy Williamson, et
al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, and attached as
Exhibit 7 to the Affidavit of Billy Shepherd.
39 Original Petition at ¶¶ 20, 21, 27; Favre-Kassab Agreement, Exhibit 3 to the Shepherd Affidavit; Email, Exhibit 4
to the Shepherd Affidavit.
40 Original Petition ¶¶ 20, 21, 27, 33; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
41 Original Petition ¶¶ 20, 21, 27; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
42 Original Petition ¶ 33; Favre Kassab Agreement, Exhibit 3 to Shepherd Affidavit (demonstrating that Kassab placed
a value on the materials of at least $250,000; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
20
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS
• Pohl owned trade secrets.43
• Pohl maintained that information as a secret, taking substantial measures to
maintain its confidentiality.44 k
• The information has independent economic value from not beCin l g generally known
to, and not readily being ascertainable through proper mceans by, another person
who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.45
• Kassab obtained the trade secrets with knowlesdge that they had been acquired
through improper means—i.e., by theft.46 g
• The misappropriation damages Pohl iBn the form of both actual loss and unjust
enrichment.47 y
• Kassab’s misappropriation was a willful and malicious.48
CONSPIRACY f
• Kassab was a membcer of a combination of two or more persons.49
• The agreed objeOct of the combination was to accomplish the unlawful purposes of
conversion pand misappropriation of trade secrets.50
• Kassab and the other conspirators committed tortious overt acts to further the object
of thie conspiracy.51
43 Original Petition ¶¶ 20, 21, 34; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
44 Original Petition ¶ 34; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
45 Original Petition ¶ 34; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
46 Original Petition ¶¶ 35, 36; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
47 Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
48 Original Petition ¶ 37; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
49 Original Petition ¶¶ 27, 35.
50 Original Petition ¶ 38.
51 Original Petition ¶¶ 27, 32, 36, 38.
21
• Pohl suffered injury as a result.52
Pohl denies that Kassab has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Pohl
has asserted a legal action based on related to or in response to Kassab’s exercise of his right to
free speech, petition, or association. To the extent that the Court disagrees, Pohkl has provided
clear and specific evidence to support his petition, and the Court should denyC Klassab’s Motion.
B. ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ANcD DISCOVERY
Kassab filed his Motion on October 24 and set it for hearing twelve days later. While Pohl
denies that Kassab has met the threshold necessary for requirinsg him to provide the Court with a
prima facie case, and Pohl contends that he has set forth such a case, to the extent that the Court
disagrees and believes that additional evidence is necessary, Pohl seeks a continuance of the
hearing and an order permitting discovery. The TCPA permits the Court to allow discovery on
the Motion, and if discovery is granted, a contianuance of up to 120 days from service of the Motion.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 27
.004(c) (permitting 120-day continuance), 27.006(b)
(permitting discovery). In the event ethat the Court is inclined to grant the Motion, there is good
cause for a continuance and discofvery because both oral and written discovery would be relevant
to obtaining additional cylear and specific evidence of Pohl’s claims for conversion,
misappropriation of trCade secrets, and conspiracy. Given that the contested issues primarily
involve Kassab’s state of mind, discovery relating to that issue would be necessary in the form of
both documentfary evidence relating to Precision’s sale of materials to Kassab and deposition
testimonyU relating to that sale.53
Specifically, the discovery that Pohl would seek includes (1) document discovery from
Kassab relating to his purchase of the materials and information, and in particular drafts of the
52 Original Petition ¶ 38; Affidavit of Michael Pohl.
53 Original Petition ¶¶ 27, 38.
22
Favre–Kassab Agreement and correspondence regarding the same; (2) an initial limited deposition
of Lance Kassab regarding his purchase of materials and information from Favre.
This request for continuance is sworn by the attached Declaration of Jean Frizzell and is
sought not for purposes of delay alone but so that justice can be done. k
C. KASSAB CANNOT CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH HIS DEFCElNSES
Kassab may argue that, even though Pohl can establish a prima faccie case, he is still entitled
to dismissal because he has established by a preponderance of the evisdence each essential element
of certain affirmative defenses, including limitations, attorney ismmunity, and res judicata. None
of these defenses is available, and Kassab has not established any of them—let alone by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Statute of Limitations has Not Run.
Kassab purchased the stolen materaial from Favre by virtue of the Favre–Kassab
Agreement, which was executed on November 10, 2016, much less than two years prior to the
filing of this suit. All of Pohl’s claimes against Kassab are based on that purchase, and no claim
has a limitations period of less tfhan two years. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.003(a)
(two-year limitation period fyor conversion); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.010(a) (three-year
limitation period for TCUTSA violations); Mayes v. Stewart, 316 S.W.3d 715, 719 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Discussions about other older potential wrongful conduct
Kassab may hafvfe engaged in related to Pohl does not alter the limitations analysis for the specific
claims PoUhl brought in this case. See Motion at 26–28. It is clear that limitations does not bar
Pohl’s claims.
23
2. The Attorney Immunity Doctrine does Not Apply.
Kassab claims that as an attorney, he is immune from liability for converting the property
of others and misappropriating trade secrets. Here again, Kassab relies on a mischaracterization
of Pohl’s claims to invoke the attorney immunity doctrine. That doctrine protectsk attorneys from
civil liability for certain actions taken while representing a client in litigation. Clanty Hanger, LLP
v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 2015). Pohl’s suit asserts claims cfor actions taken before
Kassab had a single client, much less a client in litigation. Because tshere is no way for Kassab to
show that his wrongful actions were within “the scope of clsient representation,” the attorney
immunity doctrine on its face does not apply to Pohl’s claims. Id. at 482.
3. Res Judicata Does Not Apply.
Kassab makes a contorted argument to contend that Pohl’s claims are barred by res
judicata. Kassab was not a party to the Settlemaent Agreement to which he refers, and had he been,
Pohl would include him in his breach of contract claim. There is no basis on which to contend that
Pohl’s claims against Kassab are “thee same as” the claims settled in the other case, nor that Kassab
is a party or privy to a party in thfat case. Res judicata is not an available defense.
D. REQUEST FOR AyTTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
The TCPA expCressly contemplates an award of costs for the filing of a motion that is
frivolous or brought solely for the purpose of delay. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.009(b).
The history anfdf circumstances surrounding Kassab’s Motion conclusively establish that it is
frivolousU and Kassab brought it solely for the purpose of delay.
As the Court is aware, Kassab was involved in bringing the Brumfield Litigation against
Pohl and others alleging barratry and other causes of action. The defendants moved for dismissal
24
pursuant to the TCPA, and the Court denied those motions by order signed November 6, 2017.54
At the time defendants filed those motions, they had a good faith basis on which to believe that
the motions were well taken and should be granted, but the Court disagreed and defendants lost
their motions. The Anti-SLAPP motions in the Brumfield Litigation are highlky relevant here
because of the positions Kassab took in response to those motions and the Colurt’s resolution of
those motions. Kassab clearly knew and understood when he filed the incstant Motion that he did
not have a basis for his filing and that the Court would undoubtedly dseny his Motion.
In response to the Motion to Dismiss in Brumfield, Kassasb asserted a number of arguments
including arguing at length that the commercial speech exemption applied to prevent application
of the TCPA to his claims.55 In arguing that the commercial speech exemption applied, Kassab
argued vigorously that a lawyer’s solicitation of clients constitutes commercial speech not within
the protection of the TCPA. In making this aargument, Kassab cited multiple Texas state court
cases, Fifth Circuit cases, and cases from out of state.56 Kassab contended that “when the
communication concerning provisioen of legal services is made for the primary purpose of
attracting clients . . . the communifcation is not a matter of public concern.”57 On that basis, Kassab
argued that the commercialy exception applied to exempt his claims from coverage under the
TCPA.58 Having succCessfully asserted these arguments in Brumfield, Kassab can hardly suggest
that he was unaware of their merit.
Neverthf feless, in this case, Kassab contends that Pohl brought suit against him in retaliation
for KassaUb’s solicitation of Pohl’s former clients. Kassab argues that Pohl brought his suit against
54 A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit 8 to the Shepherd Affidavit.
55 Brumfield Response, Exhibit 1 to Shepherd Affidavit, at 33–37.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 22.
58 Id.
25
Kassab “because Kassab legally and ethically contacted Pohl’s former clients.”59 Kassab contends
that his solicitation of those clients is protected by the TCPA, and he does not even mention the
commercial exception set forth in section 27.010 of the statute. Given that Kassab definitively
is aware of the commercial exception and its direct applicability to the claims Pohl bkrings, Kassab’s
failure even to mention the exception reveals his bad faith. His Motion is not juslt frivolous, Kassab
was demonstrably aware that it was frivolous. There can have been noc legitimate purpose for
bringing the Motion apart from creating unnecessary delay. s
The Court is empowered in these circumstances to awasrd Pohl his costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees in responding to the Motion. As set forth fully in the attached Declaration of Jean
Frizzell, those reasonable and necessary fees total $33,352. That total includes the necessary time
of lawyers in reviewing Kassab’s Motion, reviewing the TCPA, and researching and drafting a
response to the Motion. a
Kassab requests costs, attorneys’ fees and sanctions against Pohl and his law firm,
Reynolds Frizzell. Kassab is not entietled to any of the relief he requests because his Motion fails.
Furthermore, Kassab’s recitatiofn of the alleged basis for his request for sanction contains
substantial mischaracterizatiyons of the record of this case and the other cases to which he refers.
Kassab get a single facCt right: that he previously sought but was denied sanctions in an unrelated
case involving Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Kassab’s effort to relitigate that here is an entirely
inappropriate ufsfe of the TCPA and should not be countenanced.
59 Motion at 15.
26
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl
respectfully request that the Motion be in all respects denied and that they be awarded costs and
fees in the amount of $33,352. k
Dated: November 1, 2018 Respectfully submitted, l
REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP c
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzsell
Jean C. FrizzeDll
State Bar Nso. 07484650
1100 Louisiana Sst., Suite 3500
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel. 713.485r.7200
Fax 713.485.7250
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com
Attolrneys for Plaintiffs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIoFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true acnd correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rulefs of Civil Procedure on this 1st day of November, 2018.
/s/ Jean C. Frizzell
C Jean C. Frizzell
27"