filings: 6
Data license: Public court records
This data as json
| filing_id | date | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 2018-10-24 | EX | Kassab | Exhibit: bar grievance pleadings against Pohl | State Bar of Texas Grievance filed by Lance Christopher Kassab against Michael Pohl (File No. 201801825), including grievance form, detailed Exhibit 'A' statement of facts and violations, and two supplemental letters to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel dated July 3 and July 20, 2018 | Bar grievance filed by Kassab against Pohl with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, pursuant to Rule 8.03(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Filed on behalf of approximately 10,000 alleged victims. Companion grievance No. 201801826 filed against Cyndi Rusnak. Subsequently filed as Exhibit 21 in the Pohl v. Kassab TCPA proceedings. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_EX_Grievance-Pleadings-Against-Pohl_FILED.pdf | Disciplinary action against Michael Pohl by the State Bar of Texas for violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Texas Penal Code barratry and commercial bribery statutes | EXHIBIT 21 . & aS & @ & & S & & < OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL STATE BAR OF TEXAS GRIEVANCE FORM I. GENERAL INFORMATION Before you fill out this paperwork, there may be a faster way to resolve the isgue-you are currently having with an attorney. @ If you are considering filing a grievance against a Texas attorney for any ofthe following reasons: 5 G S ~ You believe your attorney is neglecting your case. XZ) ~ Your attorney does not return phone calls or keep you informed <a the status of your case. ~ You have fired your attorney but are having problems getting you ile back from the attorney. You may want to consider contacting the Client-Attorne Aséistance Program (CAAP) at 1-800-932-1900. & CAAP was established by the State Bar of Texas to help people resolve these kinds of issues with attorneys quickly, without the filing of a formal-griévance. CAAP can resolve many problems without a grievance being filed by prov information, by suggesting various self- help options for dealing with the situation, or byeon cting the attorney either by telephone or letter. > I have Ihave not X __ wc Client-Attorney Assistance Program. II. INFORMATION ABOUT YOu -- Praase KEEP CURRENT wS COMPLAINANT # 1: & 1. Name and address: ©) Lance Christophe Kassab, pursuant to Rule 8.03 (a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of rrofessional Co ct and on behalf of approximately 10,000 victims surrounding the Gulf Coast. & Re, Lance topher Kassab THE AB LAW FIRM 1 abama ton, Texas 77004 2. Employer and address: The Kassab Law Firm 1420 Alabama Houston, TX 77004 3. Telephone number: Residence: | Work: 713-522-7400 4. Drivers License # NA Date of Birth: NA 5. Name, address, and telephone number of person who can always reach you. Ne EN Lance Christopher Kassab NZ) THE KASSAB LAW FIRM © 1420 Alabama, Houston, Texas 77004 Re Telephone: 713-522-7400 “GO Facsimile: 713-522-7410 XG 6 @ 6. Do you understand and write in the English language? Yes ©) . ® If no, what is your primary language? GP Who helped you prepare this form? © Lance Christopher Kassab THE KASSAB LAW FIRM & 1420 Alabama S\ Houston, Texas 77004 es Telephone: 713-522-7400 ~\ Will they be available to translate future @S}respondence during this process? N/A 7. Are you a Judge? No 5 S If yes, please provide Court, oes City, State: N/A ILL. INFORMATION anour ATtonvey Note: Grievances are Hot accepted against law firms. You must specifically name the attorney against whom you omplaining. A separate grievance form must be completed for each attorney against you are complaining. wS 1. Attorney nae and address: ©) Michael Pohl 2254 Stratton Forest Heights Colorado Springs, CO 80906 2. Telephone number: Work: (713) 652-0100 Home: Unknown Other: Unknown 3. Have you or a member of your family filed a grievance about this attorney previously? Yes__ No_X_If “yes”, please state its approximate date and outcome. 4. Please check one of the following: This attorney was hired to represent me. This attorney was appointed to represent me. _X__ This attorney was hired to represent someone else. NS Please give the date the attorney was hired or appointed and what the tomes hired or appointed to do: O) See Exhibit “A” attached hereto. eS 5. What was your fee arrangement with the attorney? S See Exhibit “A” attached hereto. & If you signed a contract and have a copy, please atach, See Exhibit “A” attached hereto, If you have copies of checks and/or receipts, please attach IN N/A es 6. If you did not hire the attorney, what 1h camnection with the attorney? Explain briefly: © See Exhibit “A” attached hereto, 2>O 7. Are you currently represented byan attorney? See Exhibit “A” sche, If yes, please provide sain about your current attorney: Lance Christopher Kassab THE Kass AW FIRM 1420 a, Houston, Texas 77004 Telep : 713-522-7400 Facsimile: 713-522-7410 8. Do yo. Bam the attorney has an impairment such as depression or a substance use disorder? If yes, please provide specifics (your personal observations of the attorney such as slurred speech, odor of alcohol, ingestion of alcohol or drugs in your presence etc., including the date you observed this, the time of day, and location). No 9. Did the attorney ever make any statements or admissions to you or in your presence that would indicate that the attorney may be experiencing an impairment such as depression or a substance use disorder? If so, please provide details. x we @ IV. INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GRIEVANCE © 1. Where did the activity you are complaining about occur? © Harris County, Texas. However, activity also occurred in thrighout the Gulf Coast including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and F lotida, See Exhibit “A” attached hereto. & Z) 2. If your grievance is about a lawsuit, answer the following, @knovm: a. Name of court: See Exhibit “A” attached hereto for oe b. Title of the suit: WS © See Exhibit “A” attached hereto rte explanation. c. Case number and date suit was me © See Exhibit “A” attached Heres for further explanation. d. If you are not a party to this () what is your connection with it? See Exhibit “A” wie hereto for further explanation. If you have copies of gourt documents, please attach. 2 See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and all documents attached thereto. © 3. Explain if detail why you think this attomey has done something improper or has failed to do somethi hich should have been done. Attach additional sheets of paper if necessary. If you have copies of letters or other documents you believe are relevant to your grievance, please attach. Do not send originals. See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and all documents attached thereto. In a nutshell, Michael Pohl, Cyndi Rusnak and Jimmy Williamson (deceased) entered a joint venture and conspiracy to commit barratry by violating the Texas Penal Code, Section 38.12, Rule 7.03 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and various other rules of professional conduct. This was Accomplished by paying, giving and/or offering to pay or give money to numerous runners not licensed to practice law for soliciting prospective clients and/or referring clients or prospective clients to the Nor pecuniary gain. Please see Exhibit “A” and all other documents attached ert for further explanation and documentary proof. © Include the names, addresses, and telephone number of all persons who Know something about your grievance. SS 6 @ Lance Christopher Kassab ©) THE KASSAB LAW FIRM © 1420 Alabama ® Houston, Texas 77004 ® 713-522-7400 Ke) The documents attached to Exhibit “A” list ménypersons with knowledge of relevant facts. However, I will provide a ENS list during your investigation. Also, please be advised that a copy of your griginice will be forwarded to the attorney named in your grievance. VW V. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Warver I hereby expressly waive any attorneylient privilege as to the attorney to the extent it is, the subject of this grievance, and aut such attorney to reveal any information in the professional relationship to the e of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas regarding same. I understand that DisilnyProcetings are strictly confidential. Signature: 5 © Date: e©) TO ENSURE PROMPT ATTENTION, THE GRIEVANCE SHOULD BE MAILED TO: © The Office 6f Chief Disciplinary Counsel P.O. Bow 13466 Austin, Texas 78761 STATEMENT OF THE GRIEVANCE Attorney, Michael Pohl violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, 1.04 (f), (1) & (2), & (g); 1.15 (a)(1) & (d); 5.04 (a); 7.01(a); 7.03 (b) & (d); 7.06 (a) & (b); 8.04 (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(9) & (12), & (b). Specifically, Michael Pohl conspired with CyniiRusnak and Jimmy Williamson to improperly solicit approximately ten thousand prospec} ents and refer these prospective clients to their joint venture solely for pecuniary sins This was accomplished by hiring and paying runners to organize crews which would illegall sGanetbicaly and improperly “knock on doors” and otherwise canvas the entire Gulf Coast KS) obtain and refer potential clients who had potential claims against British Petroleum sist defendants arising out of the Deep-Water Horizon Explosion. Se Additionally, Michael Pohl on the one hand and Rusnak and Williamson on the other hand were lawyers practicing law in two distinct wt en law firms, entered into a joint venture to pay the runners for their illegal tan ad aed to split fees in complete degredation of Rule 1.04 by intentionally failing to oe. (Hient consents in writing outlining the terms of their attorney’s fee split prior to the tim ofthe association between Michael Pohl on the one hand and Rusnak and Williamson on theotiler hand. Furthermore, both a and Rusnak offered, promised and agreed to pay non-lawyers (the Runners) a portion of the atomey' fees generated from the representation arising from the illegal gathering of potent lents | ani a — This uct, violating the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and other rules of ta) Sbsolutely occurred and is painstakingly outlined in detail in Exhibit “A” along with sworn statements from the Runners themselves, all attached thereto. The conduct outlined in this grievance is the very conduct that the State Bar and the Texas Legislature has attempted to curb through recent legislation. Although it appears that there is an unwritten rule at the State Bar to take no action against lawyers when a civil case has been filed against lawyers arising out of the same conduct,! this conduct and these violations should not be condoned by the State Bar, any other agency or anyone else. Action must be taken, otherwise the erosion of the nobility in the practice of law will continue to occur, the perception that lawyers are above the awl continue to grow and lawyers will be emboldened by the fact that the State Bar will a6 nothing in light of clear violations of its Rules. © @ IY “ Ww o i ° © p GO 'T have Ss law exclusively in the field of legal malpractice for more than 20 years and in every civil malpractice case I have been involved with there have been the conduct alleged also violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. However, I have filed and/or helped file (on behalf of clients) only a small number of grievances (compared to civil cases), only to have them summarily dismissed. In each one of these grievances, there were clear violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, yet the State Bar dismissed the vast majority of them. When I finally inquired as to why the State Bar would summarily dismiss cases with clear violations, I was told that there was an unwritten rule to dismiss cases when there was a civil case filed arising out of the same conduct. Out of all the grievances I have been involved with, only a handful have not been summarily dismissed by the State Bar. EXHIBIT “A” I Facts After the tragic Deepwater Horizon oil tig explosion occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010 (the “Oil Spill”), the National Pollution Fund Center (“NPFC”) ofthe United States Coast Guard issued a letter of designation to BP Exploration and Paton Inc. (“BP”) designating it as a responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act COPa") and advising BP to advertise for and receive claims as a result of the Oil Spill. BP scepied this designation in writing and established the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”) for the purpose of administering, processing and settling claims by individuals and busing had been impacted by the Oil Spill. Ss Seizing upon the opportunity to line his pockets Michael Pohl (“Pohl”) orchestrated a conspiracy and barratry scheme with J omy Yann (Williamson) (now deceased) and Cyndi Rusnak (Rusnak) to hire and pay runners tO organize crews which would illegally, unethically and improperly “knock on doors” and otherwise canvas the Gulf Coast area to obtain and refer potential clients who had potential clei British Petroleum and other defendants arising out of the Deep-Water Horizon Explosion, Williamson engkeol in a joint venture and/or partnership with Rusnak of Cindi Rusnak, PLLC, practicing ne inde the trade name “Williamson & Rusnak” to illegally solicit and represent clients the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation.! Williamson and Rusnak also engaged another Texas lawyer, Michael A. Pohl (“Pohl”) of the Law Office of Michael Pohl, PLLC to aid in what would ultimately be unethical and illegal barratry violations relating to thousands of i aba 1 — Deposition of Jimmy Williamson, 23:14-23; Exhibit 2 ~ Walker Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. »p.5. 1 potential clients.” Pohl, Williamson and Rusnak agreed that they would split the profits from any fruits of the barratry joint venture with 40% of any attorney’s fees derived from the BP litigation going to Pohl and 60% going to Williamson and Rusnak.3 Williamson and Rusnak agreed to split their 60% of the fees according to the amount of resources each put into the cases Beginning approximately in April of 2012, Pohl, in furtherance ote joint venture, arranged a meeting with Scott Walker (“Walker”), a consultant who was-well connected with several companies in Pascagoula, Mississippi.> Pohl indicated hath Williamson wanted to hire Walker to use his contacts to obtain potential BP clients.° Witiamson met with Walker and Pohl and confirmed the barratry venture, telling Walker thatBP had structured the settlement to include the whole state of Mississippi and thus there ws Peaty thousands of businesses and individuals who could be targeted for solicitation slits Pohl and Williamson wanted to hire another person with government contacts to view Walker who could solicit governmental entities as part of the barratry conspiry® Walker introduced Pohl and Williamson to Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) of Diamond Consulting who, at the time, was a public official in Hancock County, Mississippi.? Pohl ns en advised Seymour that they “were trying to get clients & 2 Exhibit 1 — Deposition oc Fly Williamson, 58:6-25, 59:1-11, 3 Exhibit 3 — Affidavit 8 Son Walker, ¥ 2. 4 Exhibit 1 -Deveion of Jimmy Williamson, p. 32:6-20. 5 Exhibit 3 <i of Scott Walker, 2. 6 Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, ff 4, 5. 7 Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, { 4. * Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, 5. ° Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, { 5; Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, § 2. 2 with BP oil spill claims in Mississippi” and convinced him that Williamson was the “absolute best lawyer in the field for handling BP oil spill claims.””!° To aid in the barratry conspiracy, Williamson and Pohl provided Walker and Seymour with “Advertisements” promoting the legal services of Williamson, Rusnak and Pohl & Lawyers).!! Williamson instructed Walker and Seymour to use the advertisements in thei Stes pitches to potential clients in an effort to sell them on hiring the Lawyers. ! Willian and Pohl instructed Walker and Seymour to call all of their friends and sequntances toby to get them to hire the Lawyers on their BP claims, and to make cold calls on people ond sins they didn’t know.? Williamson told Walker and Seymour that he also had a po@se point presentation to be used to “seal the deal” on potential clients that were hesitant.!4 wie con provided Walker and Seymour with Williamson & Rusnak’s attorney-client sonatas used for signing up potential clients. !5 Williamson instructed Walker and Seymour to ib ta clients sign the blank contracts and to email the signed contracts to Wiliams The parties agreed that Williamson was to decide which groups of claimants should be targeted; direct the joint venture marketing efforts; provide marketing materials to use in soliciting potential clients; od with and market himself, his firm, and his partner Rusnak, Q © 10 Exhibit 4 — a Seymour, ] 3. 1 Exhibit 3- arate Walker, {| 6; Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, §f 6, 7; Exhibit 5 — Williamson and P on P Advertisements. 12 Exhibit 3 <li of Scott Walker, J 6; Petition Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, J 7. 13 Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, {J 6, 7; Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, { 7. 4 Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, {{] 6, 7; Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, ] 7. 'S Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, {J 6, 7; Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, q 7. '© Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, f] 6, 7; Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, 7. 3 to claimants with larger claims.'’ Williamson stated that he would “handle the overhead expenses” including “intake” and “staffing.”'® The parties agreed that Pohl would handle Walker’s and Seymour’s compensation.!? Rusnak’s contribution to the barratry conspiracy was to assist with the intake of the claims, review the claims, reject any unsuitable claims, ane to generally handle the processing of the claims throughout the BP Settlement Claim rose his included supervising a large staff.”° In addition, Rusnak directed the barratry conspipacy, instructing Walker to “go after the claims that would produce the highest legal fees” and ibacted Walker to “market NS to clients in certain geographic locations.”””! In early May 2012, Walker introduced Pohl and Williamson to Dane Maxwell (“Maxwell”).”” Maxwell provided lawyers with svesidged services via his company called CMV Investigations (“CMV”).”> Pohl and Winsor erste Maxwell and CMV to obtain potential BP clients.24 Maxwell assembled a en of contract workers to make cold calls on O, potential clients on behalf of the Lawyen 2 he Lawyers agreed to pay Maxwell a flat fee of $1,000 for each BP client that he or his team working for CMV obtained for the Lawyers, plus & © 7 ima nana toageli. 116; Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, 10. '8 Exhibit 3 — Affidavit oF Se Was {| 6; Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, 10. 19 Exhibit 3 — AfidavifScou Walker, {| 6; Exhibit 4 ~ Affidavit of Steve Seymour, q 10. 20 Exhibit 6 — May 20 16 Affidavit of Scott Walker, 99 5, 6, 7. 21 Exhibit 6 <M 3, 2016 Affidavit of Scott Walker, q 5. *? Exhibit 7 — Deposition of Michael Pohl, pp. 51-52. *3 Exhibit 7 — Deposition of Michael Pohl, pp. 51-52, 70. *4 Exhibit 8 - Maxwell Amended Verified Complaint. * Exhibit 8 — Maxwell Amended Verified Complaint, § 18. 4 expenses.*° The Lawyers paid Maxwell and CMV as much as $2.47 million for the illegal barratry.?7 On or about May 25, 2012, the Lawyers, Walker and Seymour reduced their agreement to commit barratry in writing.”® The agreement included another runner, Terry Robingen of Robinson Holdings, LLC (“Robinson”).”° Per the agreement, Pohl, on behalf of the fin Ger agreed to pay Walker, Seymour and Robinson (and/or their respective companies) 30% of the 40% interest in attorney’s fees he was to receive from his agreement with Wilaio in the BP litigation.*° Walker, Seymour and Robinson (collectively the “Solicitation Group") all non-lawyers, agreed to split the 30% attorney’s fees as follows: 12% to Walker (Maxwell & Walker Consulting Group, LLC); 12% to Seymour (Diamond Consulting); and cosb Pinon (Robinson Holdings, LLC). This written agreement was, of course, completely sock and illegal. See TEx. DISCIPLINARY RULES PROF'L CONDUCT R. 5.04(a)(“A lawyer sw firm shall not share or promise to share legal fees with a non-lawyer”). Over the next month, Walks Seymour and Robinson “hit the ground running” and “distributed information abou Williamson to hundreds of Mississippians.”?! Williamson, on behalf of the conspiracy later recruited another individual, Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”) to join the tat dou” Ladner had been in the seafood industry his entire life.23 f 26 Exhibit 9 — Deposition af Soot Walker, p. 200. 27 Exhibit 9 — Deposition oF Seo Walker, p. 73-74. 28 Exhibit 3 — Aft Scott Walker, at Exhibits 1 & 2 (Operating Agreements). 29 Exhibit 3 <n of Scott Walker, at Exhibits 1 & 2 (Operating Agreements). 3° Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, at Exhibits 1 &2 (Operating Agreements). *! Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, ¥ 13. ° Exhibit 4 — Affidavit of Steve Seymour, 4 15; Exhibit 10 — Affidavit of Kirk Ladner, {ff 8-9. 33 Exhibit 10 — Affidavit of Kirk Ladner, ff 8-9. 5 Williamson and Pohl convinced Ladner to join their barratry organization, telling him that he, along with Seymour and Walker, would all be “multi-millionaires.”*4 Thus, on July 15,2012, Pohl, on behalf of the joint venture, signed a new unethical and illegal partnership agreement with Ladner, Walker and Seymour.*’ In this new agreement, Ladner, Walker and Seymour agreed to accept a 22.5 % interest in the attorney’s fees Pohl was to obtain from BF representation agreement between Williamson and Pohl.*° One of the reasons for this pew agreement was that Williamson wanted to end the relationship with Robinson.27 , & The Lawyers paid roughly $5 million in “barratry pass ou money” to Walker, Ladner and Seymour to solicit and accumulate potential clients.** Althotgh the money was labeled on the books as “marketing money” for “marketing services,” wie candidly admitted that it is “clear to [him] it was barratry.”3? Walker, Ladner and see wed this money to solicit BP clients on behalf of the Lawyers’ joint venture.”° RS The barratry money distributed oar, Walker, Seymour and CMV would be used to pay case runners who worked below then in what can only be described as a barratry pyramid scheme. While CMV would rece $1,000 per potential client, the mid-level runners would receive $100-$250 of this sit per potential client. The mid-level runners would also recruit runners to work below ogre pay the low-level runners $20-$30 per potential client while 34 Exhibit 4 — sn teve Seymour, {ff 16-19; Exhibit 10 ~ Affidavit of Kirk Ladner, $f 10-16. 35 Exhibit 4 — aside of Steve Seymour, at Exhibit 2 Operating Agreement. 36 Exhibit 4 Ala of Steve Seymour, at Exhibit 2 Operating Agreement. 37 Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, ¥ 14. 38 Exhibit 9 — Deposition of Scott Walker, pp. 73-76. * Exhibit 9 — Deposition of Scott Walker, p. 149. 40 Exhibit 9 — Deposition of Scott Walker, p. 200. 6 working under their umbrella. Thus, while the lowest level runners would receive a mere $20 from the Williamson-Pohl-Rusnak conspiracy, the mid-level runners would receive $100-$250 per potential client and CMV would receive the remainder of the $1,000. One of the low level runners was Jacqueline Taylor (“Taylor”) PR State Line, eS Mississippi.*' Taylor was recruited to solicit clients for the lawyers through EMV by another runner, Karen Boykin (“Boykin”).*” Taylor owned a beauty salon and wag Sontacted in person by S Boykin who was targeting small business owners on behalf of the Layiyers.® Boykin told Taylor NS that she had a claim against BP and convinced her to hire the Lane to file the claim.“ Taylor agreed and completed the blank Williamson & Rusnak contract fiat Boykin had brought with her. Boykin then told Taylor about all the money she was vst to solicit clients and gave her the business card of another lady working for CMV, Mons Chaney:** a pune Se es Monica Chaney - g Cell: 228-219-988 ~\ fama e ee KR CVi/ Cell: 601-470-2331 © mr BP Claims Conguitat , ones mneranseh Fax, 228-87 2-i rota rie |) D'bervite, MS ' eS aN 3 4! Exhibit 11 — Sw tatement of Jaqueline Taylor, p. 5. 2 Exhibit 1 1 Sgn Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, pp. 5-6. “3 Exhibit 11 — Swom Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, pp. 6-7. “ Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, pp. 7-8. ** Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, pp. 7-8. “© Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, p. 6, and at Taylor Exhibit 1. 7 Taylor called Chaney who hired her to solicit clients.47 Chaney told Taylor that Williamson and Pohl employed CMV to solicit clients.*® Taylor was given blank Williamson & Rusnak and Pohl contracts”? and was trained on how to obtain potential clients on behalf of the Lawyers and what to say.©” Taylor was trained to target business owners and then, when those claimsyan out, farmers and land owners.*’ Taylor was provided a map and told to focus on pri Taylor was paid $20-$30 per potential client®? while Chaney was paid $100-$1 50 foreach potential client brought in by Taylor.*4 Taylor would send the clients information Bane each week and was paid through a cash card from Wal-Mart. Taylor was ribet fo any expenses associated with the solicitation. All total, Taylor was paid to solicit overine hundred potential clients.5” Another runner under the Lawyer’ barratry schenéive Magdalena Santana (“Santana”).°8 Santana was approached by Seymour in July of sores recruited by Williamson and Pohl for a “marketing position” which required her to “9 Brat clients and sign them up for legal w EN © “7 Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Jaqucling Payor, pp. 9-10. “8 Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of agen Taylor, pp. 11-13. Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Zagieline Taylor, pp. 9-10. °° Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, pp. 17-19. 5! Exhibit 11 — Sworn Sateen Jaqueline Taylor, p. 20. * Exhibit 11 — Sworn Satnen of Jaqueline Taylor, p. 31-32. 3 Exhibit 11 — Swit Sitemen of Jaqueline Taylor, p. 13. * Exhibit 1 1 Sein Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, p. 23, 50. °° Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, p. 13-14. °° Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, p. 26-27. *7 Exhibit 11 — Sworn Statement of Jaqueline Taylor, p. 16. °8 Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit. 8 representation.”°° Santana testified that the job required her to “make cold calls on business owners and managers trying to get them to sign blank legal representation contracts with Pohl and Williamson.”® Santana “would be paid $250 for each claim [she] signed up.”*! Santana was instructed by Pohl to target “businesses in the high-paying settlement zones” une “beachfront properties, hotels, taxi companies, commercial fisherman, nightlubs, a other tourism businesses.” Williamson likewise instructed Santana to “go business to,bpsiness, door to door” GS asking people “if they had losses from the oil spill.” Separate from Pati, Williamson instructed Santana to “target businesses in high paying zones and in tourign Zones since they were getting higher payouts.” Santana was provided a map showing he high-paying settlement zones.® Santana was told to target churches because they were “sy as they “didn’t have to provide tax 9966 returns. < ON Like other runners, Santana was provided a binder with blank Williams-Pohl-Rusnak O, contracts and advertisements (similar to hese above) with Williamson’s name on them to distribute to potential clients, Santana Was also emailed blank Williamson-Pohl contracts. & — 8 *° Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, ] x 6° Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit 4 6! Exhibit 12 — Santana asian 14. © Exhibit 12 — Santana Afidavit, 5. wS © Exhibit 12 — Sa sans Afi 13. “ Exhibit 12 Sania Affidavit, ] 13. 6 Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, ] 6, see also Santana Exhibit B. ° Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, q{5. *’ Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, {] 6, see also Santana Exhibit A. 68 Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, J 8, see also Santana Exhibit C. . 9 Santana was told that if she had trouble soliciting a “big fish” client, Williamson and Pohl would visit them personally.® Santana solicited seventy-seven (77) claims her first week on the job.” Santana was paid bonuses personally by Williamson for obtaining the “big fish” clients. 7! Williamson told Santana that they “were all going to make lots of money.”” Santana testified how cS “Williamson and Pohl both knew that [she] was cold-calling businesses to sep BK claims.” “Both Williamson and Pohl gave [her] specific instructions to knock on doors to-drum up clients for SS them.””4 5 ss NS All total, Santana obtained approximately 1,500 cases for Wiliamson, Rusnak and Pohl.” None of them were friends, family or colleagues.” After sein would solicit the clients, Pohl would meet Santana at restaurants to sign the contracts ao illegally and unethically obtained.”” Santana was not paid by Pohl and Williamson pas but through a company called Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”).’8 This xe a company formed by Walker, Ladner and O, Seymour to serve as the “center of operons for the solicitation.”” The lease, furnishings and © @ GS © Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, 7. & ” Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, J EN ” Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit 92. ? Exhibit 12 — Santana asia q 13. 73 Exhibit 12 — Santana Advi 138. SS 4 Exhibit 12 — Sa ans Affidavit, 7 38. ® Exhibit 12 Sanians Affidavit, 38. 7 Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, J 38. ” Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, J 22. ” Exhibit 12 — Santana Affidavit, | 23. ” Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scott Walker, § 32. 10 staff of this company was paid for by the Lawyers.®° When Santana asked Pohl why she was not paid by him directly, Pohl stated “that it was illegal for him to pay [her] directly, and that’s why the money had to go through some company.”®! Santana and Taylor were just two of the many runners. Eventually the Lawyers’ joint venture had illegally solicited appeeemately 9,800 potential or actual BP clients.®2 oy On October 18, 2014, Walker, Ladner, Seymour and their related entities, including Precision, filed suit against Pohl and Williamson, alleging they “inal ogther in a joint venture or partnership in order to represent Mississippi clients in their lis against [BP] in connection with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill” and “contracted vith [them] to provide public relations services for this joint venture.”®? The runners alleged nde lawyers breached their agreement, engaged in bad faith, breached their duties of soog and fair dealing and became unjustly enriched after they refused to pay them fees fc whiting the clients on the lawyers’ behalf.°4 Rusnak was eventually added to this last under the claim that she too was part of the joint venture or partnership.®* Walker, Seymour and Ladner later assigned their right in the action to Precision®® and Precision was purchased by an individual named Scott F avre (“Favre”).87 © ry 80 Exhibit 3 — Affidavit of Scout alker, J 32. 8! Exhibit 12 — Santana doit, 23. ® Exhibit 1 — Depoftion of Jimmy Williamson, 186:6-22. 83 Exhibit 2 we Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 475), p. 2; Exhibit 13 — Walker First Amended Complaint. 84 See Exhibit 13 — Walker First Amended Complaint. * Exhibit 2 ~ Walker Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 475), p. 2. *° Exhibit 2— Walker Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 475), p. 2. *” Exhibit 14 — Affidavit of Scott Farve. 11 The Lawyers attempted to dismiss that litigation, arguing that they were not partners or in a joint venture with one another or the runners and that the agreements between them and the runners were illegal and unenforceable.** The federal court rejected these contentions, finding prima facia evidence that Pohl, Williamson and Rusnak to be in a partnership or j cugt venture with each other and also concluding that the agreements to solicit clients would ae a violation of Texas law and the Texas disciplinary rules, which did not apply to Walker, Seymour and Ladner.®? Having failed to obtain summary dismissal, the Lawyers settled the pation with Precision and NS Favre, hoping to forever conceal their barratry conspiracy.” In addition to illegally soliciting unsuspecting people for the BP oil spill, Pohl also illegally solicited victims of rollover accidents. Specifically, rent er Santana, her brother Jay Santana, Ladner, Seymour and Walker to solicit families whenever were killed or severely injured in rollover accidents. Incredibly, and with cin dls Pohl helped set up companies like “The Helping Hands Group”! and the “GM stoma Verification Team”** in order to make people believe these companies and their employees (the Runners) were there to actually help rollover accident victims. & Pohl would direct be Runes to specific accidents as soon as they happened and typically pay these Ranmes 2.5% of his attorney’s fees from each case they signed up on his 88 Exhibit 2— Wa emorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 475); Exhibit 15 — Williamson Memorandum (Doc. No. 178); Exhibit 1 hl Memorandum (Doc. No. 175). 89 Exhibit 2SWulker Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 475); Exhibit 17 — Walker Order on Pohl and Williamson Motions to Dismiss (Doc. No. 252); Exhibit 18 — Walker Order on Rusnak Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 273). * Exhibit 19 — Walker Judgment (Doc. No. 499). °! Exhibits 25, 28 and 29. 2 Exhibit 40. 12 behalf.”? As an example, on September 29, 2012, Michael Pohl sent Walker an article about a death in a rollover accident that occurred two days earlier.°* Walker immediately sent the article to his Runners about two hours later stating, “See below article. We need to try and sign the family of the deceased mentioned in the article. If you think you can make this happen, cajlme and I will cN send you a contract from Michael. We need to move fast on this.” That sine aflemoon, Pohl forwarded a contract to Walker who forwarded it to the field Runners.** Asan extra incentive to SS motivate the Runners, Walker told Jay Santana to go to Pohl’s wobte to see “the cases that NS Michael has won.”®” The list of rollover cases on the website shows that Pohl has settled or obtained judgments on rollover cases in excess of 43 ming gie Another example is a rollover case in Towa Ko where eleven people were injured on April 14, 2013. By April 19, 2013, MagdalenaSantana had been sent to Kansas and signed ‘ 100 : AS) . cc . . up the entire group. By April 29, 2013 “ee ael Pohl signed a “Retention of Services O, Agreement” with Ladner, Walker and Seow agreeing to pay them a fee of $1,500 an hour, not to exceed 22.5% of Pohl’s attorney’s fe. On the same day, Ladner, Walker and Seymour signed an “Operating Agreement with Mafiatene Santana and Florian Santana agreeing to pay them 25% 3 Exhibits 20, 41 & 42. SS 4 Exhibit 20. © 5 Td. Note, Pohl was on the email. eO) 6 Exhibit 21. Po os $ copied on this email as well. 97 Exhibit 2205S" 8 Id. °° Exhibit 41. 100 7g, 101 Td. 13 each from the 22.5% of Pohl’s attorney’s fees.'°? The Operating Agreement does not provide for an hourly rate, it simply states that, “The parties hereto agree that the fees paid under this Operating Agreement shall not exceed twenty-two and one-half percent (22.5%) of LOMAP’s 40% interest in the representation agreement of the above mentioned victims.”!™ x Another example involved a rollover in Muskogee, Oklahoma on 2, 2014 where Cynthia Shannon was ejected from the vehicle and killed.! Within sins of the accident, Helping Hands visited the mourning family and convinced the fay to sign an agreement allowing for them to “hire independent experts or attorneys” as otping Hands deems necessary and charge the family up to 40% of any recovery the storey sbi for them.'° By June 20, 2014, Michael Pohl signs the “Retention of Services Agreement with Walker and Ladner of the “Claim Verification Team (an affiliate of The oe cae Group, LLC)” wherein Pohl agrees to pay the “Claims Verification Team” up to 28% of his attorney’s fees for soliciting and referring the case to Pohl.!% & Michael Pohl’s barratry scheme Was choreographed to a science. The Runners were told precisely what to do when a rllov€é necured, such as “go to the wreck as early as you can to find blown tires,” “take pictures” in personal items (cell phone, iPods, eye wear, anything personal) to take to teh al when you meet the families.”'®’ They were instructed to “meet & a 102 Td. & 108 Id, 104 Exhibit \ 105 Td, 106 Tq. 107 Exhibit 23 (emphasis added). 14 with the family of the deceased and have them sign the contract” and to “[g]et all the other members that were in the case to sign additional contracts because they will receive funds also from the settlement.”’”* The Runners were also instructed “to inquire if the deceased’s family may need help from HELPING HANDS for the burial.”! le Helping Hands is an organization run by none other than Donalda rn ish Pohl’s spouse. The Runners were instructed to offer funds from Helping Hands ¥f they would sign a contract with Helping Hands. The contract with Helping Hands oid Helping Hands to hire attorneys for the family’s rollover case and earn a percentage of any settlement recovery. Of course, the attorney chosen by Helping Hands was always Michael Pohl. One example of this relates to Mark Cheatham Tragically, on February 15, 2014, Mark Cheatham’s ex-wife, LaDonna, whom Mark kad reunited with and Mark’s three children (one biological) were involved in a rollover oii" Mark’s biological son, Markus was the only one to survive. One of Pohl’s Runners, Keine Talley (Talley) arrived in Louisiana on February 18, 2014 to solicit Mark and his grieving family just three days after he lost the majority of his family.!’° On February 19, 2014, alley stopped at My Rouses to pick up flowers on his way to Mark’s home.!!! Talley’s vis uninvited and unsolicited by Mark. However, after gaining Mark’s confidence vile a was dealing with the tragic loss of LaDonna and his two daughters, and dealing with his, son’s serious injuries, Talley convinced Mark to sign an agreement with SO iS & eS ee 108 Td. 109 7d (emphasis in original) HO Exhibit 24 11 Iq. 15 Helping Hands,'"” sign a limited power of attorney! and sign the crashed vehicle over to Talley for $2,000.00.'* Remarkably, the $2,000.00 for the purchase of the vehicle came from Helping Hands which charged Mark 18% per annum for the very funds Talley paid to Mark for the vehicle.'!° Talley also had Mark sign an “Attorney Acknowledgment” form for Helping Hands.!!6 cS The form provides that, “{i]n the event of a dispute, my attorney shall be epi to his fee and expenses.”''7 And that if Mark wanted to change his attorney, the “Funding Agent [Helping SS Hands] may declare the subject debt due and payable.”!!® Of course attorney being referred to was Michael Pohl, Donalda Pohl’s (owner of Helping Hands) sand This is known because the attorney signature line on the form is signed with the igQear for Michael A. Pohl.!!? This barratry conspiracy between husband and wife is und by the fact that Helping Hands has a form that protects the attorney’s interests. In furtherance of the conspiracy is the Helping Hands “Funding Agreement.”!?° This agreement rv tt the “Funding Agent agrees that it will be O, repaid only if as and when Chimant’s over is funded.” And that, IF THERE IS NO @ RECOVERY, CLAIMANT HAS NO.OBLIGATION TO REPAY THIS DEBT.!2! However, & 112 Exhibit 25, <\ 113 Exhibit 26. S 114 Exhibit 27. © & 115 Exhibit 28. > wS N6 Exhibit 29. ES © 118 7g. , 119 Td. 120 Exhibit 30. '21 Td. (emphasis in original). 16 in small-unemboldened script, the document states, “If I decide to drop my case and my Attorney [Michael Pohl] believes my case is meritorious and economically justifiable, then I must repay the indebtedness hereby created.”'”? Thus, the document obligates the client (Mark Cheatham in this instance) to pay Helping Hands up to 40% of any recovery regarding the accident pursuant to the Helping Hands agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 25.!3 In fact, the sing agreement marked as Exhibit 25 also allows Helping Hands to hire experts and attorneys’ as Helping Hands deems necessary.'** Michael Pohl signed an attorney/client cont ith Mark on February 21, 2014, just six (6) days after the tragic accident and two days afer Talley showed up at Mark’s home uninvited.’?> Notably, Tally brought a notary from Kini On-Site-Notary with him.!*6 The Runners of course were not to be left wit bing their percentage of fees recovered from these lucrative rollover cases. Mid Pohl signed a “Retention of Services Agreement” (Retention Agreement) with san Wa and Kirk Ladner of Precision Marking Group (Precision) with regard to Mark Chatham's case.'?” In the Retention Agreement, Pohl agreed to pay Precision $1,500 an hous. up to 30% of Pohl’s 40% contingency fee.'"8 However, Pohl and Precision both knew tha the fee for soliciting and referring cases would not be based upon an hourly rate, but her apr of attorney’s fees recovered. This is so, because the Retention Agreement sae tt “any and all such fees shall be apportioned by and between the — 122 Td. 5 & 123 Exhibit 25, @ © 124 Tq Sy 125 Exhibit 32. 126 Td. 27 Exhibit 31. 128 7. 17 parties hereto as follows: Ladner (15%) and Walker (15%).”!?° If the parties to the agreement actually thought Precision’s fee was based upon an hourly rate the split between Ladner and Walker would be 50/50 and not listed a 15% for each. Kenneth Talley was to be rewarded as well. He was to receive $10,000.00 for every one-million recovered for Cheatham and his family.!*° This is not based upon any hourly rate. oe Underscoring the fact that Precision was to be paid a percentage of the attorney’s fees recovered as opposed to an actual hourly rate is the numerous cherie when Pohl paid Ladner and Walker for there solicitation and referral of rollover cases. Unie the Cheatham case, most agreements for referring cases to Pohl outlined a fee to Precisigir of 22.5% instead of 30%.'3! On November 28, 2014, Pohl sent an email to Walker won “Diaz/Curran” case stating the case settled for $875,000.00.!32 Pohl disclosed the@mount of settlement so that Walker could manufacture his hours to fit 22.5% of Pohl’s £2 om can clearly see the calculation of legal fees from the $875,000 to be $306,250. Then that number was multiplied by 22.5% to come up with $68,906.25 and then divided by $1,500 per hour to come up the number of hours (45.93 hours).!°> Of course, Walker rounds up to an even 46 hours.'*° If Pohl actually believed that he was paying Precision by be oi he would not have disclosed the amount of the recovery; he & Id. | ~S 130 Exhibit 33. NS © 131 Exhibit 34, & 132 Exhibit rs 133 Tq. 134 Tq. 135 Tq. 136 Td. 18 would have simply requested a detailed account of the hours spent by Precision. If Precision’s time actually surpassed 22.5% of the attorney’s fee, Pohl could have simply reduced the amount to no more than 22.5%. The same thing was done with the “Sanchez” case. On J anuary 1, 2015, Pall sent an email to Walker informing him that the Sanchez case had settled for $680,000.37 Poi ats “In order to compute the ceiling on your hourly fees and expenses, the attorney feesnet of local counsel charges was $250,129.90.”!38 Pohl provides this figure without knowin that Precision’s hours would even reach the 22.5% threshold. This is because everyone knew that the real fee to Precision was 22.5% of Pohl’s net attorney’s fee. Of course, 22.5% of 250,129.90 is 56,279.90.!5° After deducting the $5,000 owed to Pohl for personal loans, wine divides the remainder to calculate Precision’s hours instead of providing a setaledenccty billing. '*° In fact, the “Operating Agreement” Pohl signed with Precision, viv the Sanchez case, does not mention an hourly “rate,” it simply states that, “The pais here agree that the fees paid under this Operating Agreement shall not exceed twenty-two and one-half percent (22.5%) of LOMAP’S [Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl] representatioi agreement with victims in cases where Precision Marketing Group, LLC is retained.” Th Agreement clearly contemplates that Ladner, Walker and Seymour, of Precision wax receive 7.5% for a total of 22.5%.'" The “Operating Agreement” 137 Exhibit 36. © 138 1a, Sy 139 Tq. 140 Td. 141 Exhibit 34, 142 Td. 19 between Precision and the Runners who actually signed up the Sanchez case shows that Precision is to receive 50% percent of the 22.5% and Florian Santana and Magdalena Santana were to each receive 25% of the 22.5%.'*? These documents prove, without doubt, that Pohl agreed share his fees with non-lawyers for soliciting and referring rollover cases. Ne In October of 2014, Pohl was caught attempting to steal a rollover asm a lawyer in Mississippi. On October 15, 2014, Richard Shenkan of the Shenkan Law Fitm sent a letter to Pohl stating, “On September 16, 2014, your salesman, Kirk Ladner, came wide home of Michael Lucas under the disguise of a member of the GM Settlement Verification Fea, LLC, offering to ‘inform’ the resident about a potential legal claim.”!44 Mr. Shenkan alsy states, “Remarkably, Mr. Ladner explained that he typically earns $25,000 for every ce for you [Pohl] which involves a catastrophic injury potentially involving the GM rte defect claims.”!*5 Attached hereto is the contract between Pohl and Michael Lucas wi was the subject of Mr. Shenkan’s letter.!* Pohl’s remarkable unconsciousness undscore by the creation of the “GM Settlement Verification Team” as referred to in Ms, Shenkan’s letter.47 As stated by Mr. Shenkan, Pohl’s runner acted as if he was part oO Genera Motors and was simply contacting people to “inform” ee & © 143 Exhibit BS 144 Exhibit 38. 145 Tq. 146 Exhibit 39. 47 Td. 20 them about potential legal claims.'** Another example of this pertains to the Hart family." This tactic was used by Pohl and his Runners on numerous occasions. !%° The history of what is known as “barratry” in Texas is long. Although it has recently become the subject of civil statutes, barratry has been considered a crime in Texgs since 1876. EN Reynolds v. State, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 11059, *1-2.; Katherine A. Laroe, gosilent Much Ado About Barratry: State Regulation of Attorneys’ Targeted Direct-Mail Solicitation, 25 St. Mary's L.J. S 1514, 1519-20 n.28 (1994)(also tracing historical basis of offense throigh pre-colonial times). As NS far back as 1917, Texas outlawed a distinct form of barratry oF third party (a "runner") to solicit clients on behalf of a lawyer. Jd. at 1524 n.30; Remote 17 Tex. App. LEXIS 11059, *1- 2. In a different form, that prohibition exists today ope PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.12(d)(West 2016) which criminalizes a lawyer knowingly — a third party to improperly solicit on the lawyer's behalf employment from a victim witha iyo days of an accident. Under the text O, of the statute, a lawyer commits an fens hen he or she: (d)(2) with the intent to obtai “Gro fessional employment for the person or for another, provides or knowi iy permit to be provided to an individual who has not sought the person's employment, legal representation, advice, or care a written communication or a solicitation, including a solicitation in person or by telephone, that: \ (A) concerns an Goivtor personal injury or wrongful death or otherwise relates to an accident of disaster involving the person to whom the communication or solicitation isprovided or a relative of that person and that was provided before the 31st day-atter the date on which the accident or disaster occurred. gS < M48 Td. 149 Exhibit 40. ‘50 There are numerous documents supporting this fact that have not been attached hereto, but are available upon request. 21 Stated otherwise: (1) a lawyer, (2) cannot with intent to obtain professional employment, (3) provide or knowingly permit to be provided to someone who hasn't sought the lawyer's services, (4) a written communication or a solicitation (in person or by phone), (5) in the first thirty days following some accident or disaster. Jd. ve “The ordinary meaning of barratry is vexatious incitement to tigation especially by soliciting potential legal clients.” Neese v. Lyon, 479 S.W.3d 368, 376 (Te -App—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citations omitted). In an effort to curtail this crime, the Least, in 1989, enacted § 82.065 of the Texas Government Code, which allowed clients to seid contingent fee contract “if it is procured as a result of conduct violating the laws of this ie or the Disciplinary Rules of the State Bar of Texas regarding barratry by attorneys or ti ys Neese, 479 S.W.3d at 376- 77. The 1989 version of section 82.065 provided: & A contingent fee contract for legal servi SY vant by the client if it is procured as a result of conduct violating the 1 f this state or the Disciplinary Rules of the State Bar of Texas regarding rd attorneys or other persons. See id.; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 866, givett Sept. 1, 1989 (amended 2011). In 2011, the Legislature pésed Senate Bill 1716 which amended § 82.065 and enacted section 82.0651 to create eo “liability arising from conduct constituting barratry and provid[ing] a civil peng? Se JUDICIARY & CIVIL JURISPRUDENCE COMMITTEE REPORT, 8.B. 1716, Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 94 (S.B. 1716), § 3(a), eff. Sept. 1, 2011 (“S.B. 1716 Analysis”) (emphasis added Nees 479 §.W.3d at 377. The purpose of S.B. 1716 was to create a civil cforement pa statutes and disciplinary rules prohibiting barratry, the “vexatious incitement to litigation, especially by soliciting potential legal clients.” See S.B. 1716 Analysis.'>* The bill 'S! Exhibit 44 — A true and correct copy of S.B. 1716 Analysis. 192 Td. 22 itself specifically stated that it was intended to provide “liability arising from conduct constituting barratry; providing a civil penalty.” See S.B. 1716, Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 94 (S.B. 1716), § 3(a), eff. Sept. 1, 2011 (“S.B. 1716”), #53 The legislative intent and “purpose” of S.B. 1716 was set forth in ne Gepon of the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee to “add a civil enforcement opfon to “help curtail” the practice of barratry: 5 & &s Barratry is commonly known as vexatious incitement to litigation, typically by soliciting potential legal clients. Many refer to the pract®oy a “case running.” Under Section 38.12, Penal Code, “barratry” is genery. efined as the illegal solicitation of professional employment. The Texas; isciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas prohibit\these solicitations as well. Adding a civil enforcement option would help cua is practice. S.B. 1716 adds a cause of action for a client Wo has been unlawfully solicited to void the contract and recover any actual d s and any fees and expenses paid. The bill allows a potential client to rec civil penalty of $10,000 from any person who committed barratry but not succeed in getting the potential client to sign a contract. Actual d. Ss and attorney's fees are also recoverable by a potential client. we See S.B. 1716 Analysis (emphasis added): House Bill 1890, the companion and preceding bill 2 O to 8.B. 1716, also provided that ‘the purpose of the legislation was to create “[c]ivil action for conduct constituting barratry “ee HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION BILL ANALYSIS OF HB 1890, April 20, 2011 coe 890 Analysis”) (emphasis added).'°° Under the enacted statute, “(victims of barratry w ho did not enter a contract could recover $1 0,000 penalty, actual damages, NS and attorney’s fees” See id. (emphasis added).!% < ‘93 Exhibit 45 — A true and correct copy of S.B. 1716 154 See Exhibit 44 — A true and correct copy of S.B. 1716 Analysis. ‘SS Exhibit 46 — A true and correct copy of H.B. 1890 Analysis. 156 See Id. 23 Texas Government Code section 82.0651, the enacted section to create the civil enforcement, is specifically titled “Civil Liability for Prohibited Barratry.” See TEx. Gov’T CODE § 82.0651(c) and (€) (eff. Sept. 1, 2011 to Aug. 31, 2013) (emphasis added).!57 Section 82.0651 enacted in 2011 provided: BS (c) A person who was solicited by conduct violating the laws of tips or the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bay of Texas regarding barratry by attorneys or other persons, but who did Cipenter into a contract as a result of that conduct, may file a civil action againet y person who committed barratry. A NS (d) A person who prevails in an action under Subsection (sal recover from each person who engaged in barratry: G @ (1) a penalty in the amount of $10,000; Ke) (2) actual damages caused by the prohibited obriduct; and (3) reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees &s See id. (emphasis added). To promote its Purpose to deter barratry and to create a civil liability, § 82.065 1(e) expressly provided that the section was to “liberally construed.” Id. at § 82.0651(e) (emphasis added). 5 S In 2013, the Legisatan( pie House Bill 1711, which the bill described as “relating to barratry,” to amend sections 82.068 and 82.0651. See Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., ch. 315, H.B. 1711, © § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2013, CHB, 1711”).'°8 The reason for the amendment was stated in the “background and pitpose” of H.B. 1711: SS Recent eisatin established civil liability for prohibited barratry and provided for ility of a client to void any contract for legal services that was procured t such prohibited conduct. Concern has been raised over reports that some attorneys have found a loophole in the law to avoid one of the civil penalties for barratry by releasing their client after a case is “run” and a contract for legal ‘57 Exhibit 47 — A true and correct copy of TEX. Gov’T CODE § 82.065 (eff. Sept. 1, 2011 to Aug. 31, 2013). 188 Exhibit 48 — A true and correct copy of H.B. 1711. 24 services is signed. Interested parties note that the $10,000 penalty currently assessed applies only when a person is illegally solicited but no legal services contract is signed as a result of that conduct and that there is no such penalty if a legal services contract is signed as a result of that illegal solicitation. In an effort to close this loophole and hold attorneys who commit barratry accountable for their actions, C.S.H.B. 1711 authorizes a client who enters into a legal services contract to recover certain damages and amounts from a person who cempmits barratry. KN a @ See HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION BILL ANALYSIS OF HB 171 1, Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., ch. 315, H.B. 1711, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2013 (“H.B. 1711 Analysis).!° HB. 114 also amended Section eZ) 82.0651 from “conduct violating the laws of this state or the Disciplinary Rules of the State Bar of Texas” to “conduct violating Section 38.12(a) or (b), Penab’Cdde, or Rule 7.03 of the Texas @ Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar6ey exas.” See H.B. 1711; TEX. Gov’T Cope § 82.0651 (eff. Sept. 1, 2013).! H.B. 1711 was codified into Section S065) and became effective Sept. 1, 2013. The Ss Statute is again titled “Civil Liability for Paiva Barratry” the relevant portion of which provides: S (c) A person who was solicited by conduct violating Section 38.12(a) or (b), Penal Code, or Rule 7.03 of thé Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas, tegarding barratry by attorneys or other persons, but who did not enter into a coiract as a result of that conduct, may file a civil action against any person why ommitted barratry. © (d) A person whbphevails in an action under Subsection (c) shall recover from each person who engaged in barratry: NS (Dhapenalty in the amount of $10,000; Xe actual damages caused by the prohibited conduct; and. (3) reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. '®? Exhibit 49 — A true and correct copy of H.B. 1711 Analysis. '©0 Exhibit 50 — A true and correct copy of TEX. Gov’T CODE § 82.0651 (eff. Sept. 1, 2013). 25 See id. (emphasis added). Even as amended, § 85.0651 was to be “liberally construed” to promote its underlying purpose of deterring barratry. Jd. at § 82.0651 (e). This section has not been repealed or amended since 2013. See Id. Unfortunately, however, as shown herein, Michael Pohl believes he is abaye the clear and unequivocal laws of Texas which are outlined in the Texas Penal Code and beta Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. This is a textbook case for the violations ofthese laws and rules, and the evidence is overwhelming. , Ss i) II VIOLATIONS & The evidence cited to above and attached hereto ceil shows that Michal A. Pohl violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Ss (1) & (2), & (g), 1.15 (a)(1), 5.04 (a) & (d)(1), 7.03 (b) & (d), 7.05 (a) & (c), 7.06 @eo, 8.04 (a)(1)(2)(3)(9) & (12), & (b). Pohl and his wife, Donalda also violated the Tea en Code, Sections 38.12(a)(4), 38.12(b)(1), (2) & (3) which are third-degree felonies in Texas and considered “serious crimes” pursuant to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, 8.04(b). Pohl also violated Section 32.43(b) of the Texas Penal Code. Moreové ti evidence attached outlines an egregious conspiracy between Michael Pohl and his wife Donald Pohl to take advantage of grieving individuals in despicable fashion. ou N A. TEXAS Discs INARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT VIOLATIONS: 1. Rule L040, (1) & (2), & (g) provides: a division or agreement for division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if: (1) the division is: (i) in proportion to the professional services performed by each lawyer; or 26 (ii) made between lawyers who assume joint responsibility for the representation; and (2) The client consents in writing to the terms of the arrangement prior to the time of the association or referral proposed, including (i) The identity of all lawyers or law firms who will particips in the fee- sharing arrangement; and @ (ii) | Whether fees will be divided based on the proportio Sfservices performed or by lawyers agreeing to assume joint responsibility fo the representation; and SS (iii) | The share of the fee that each lawyer. or firm will receive, or if the division is based on the proportion of services performed, the basis on which the division is based on the proportion ab services performed, the basis on which the division will be made; . . . (g) Every agreement that allows a lawyer or to associate other counsel in the representation of a person, or to refett e person to other counsel for such representation, and that results in suclran association with or referral to a different law firm or a lawyer in such a diffeeeat firm, shall be confirmed by an arrangement conforming to paragraph (f). Consent by a client or a prospective client without knowledge of the informatio ified in subparagraph (f)(2) does not constitute a confirmation within the g of this rule. No attorney shall collect or seek to collect fees or expenses connection with any such agreement that is not confirmed in that way, io t for: (1) the reasonable value ofteal services provided to that person; and (2) the reasonable and recdssary expenses actually incurred on behalf of that person. TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. Prom’ Conpuct 1.04(f), (1) & (2), & (g). © As shown, Pohl Williamson and Rusnak agreed to share fees arising out of their joint representation of cen in the BP litigation. The contracts attached hereto as Exhibit 43 are SS completely devoid of the language mandated by Rule 1.04, and therefore, prove that Pohl, Williamson and Rusnak knowing failed to comply with Rule 1.04(f), (1) & (2), & (g).'®! 2. Rule 1.15 (a)(1) provides: (a) A lawyer shall decline to represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw, except as stated in paragraph (c), from the representation of a client, if: 161 Exhibit 43, 27 (1) the representation will result in violation of Rule 3.08, other applicable rules of professional conduct or other law; .. . TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF’L CONDUCT 1.15(a) (1). The Lawyers rejected many of the potential clients illegally obtained eae was convicted of a felony and sent to prison in Mississippi in an attempt to estan themselves from him. However, Pohl, Williamson and Rusnak kept many of the ill-gotten clients, failing to withdraw as mandated by and in violation of Rule 1.15. 5 & Rule 5.04 (a) provides: (a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share or promise tire legal fees with a nonlawyer, . TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF’L CONDUCT 5.04(a). ss As shown above, Pohl agreed to share fees we share fees regarding his rollover cases with Walker, Ladner, Seymour, Santana, Talley and numerous others, all of which are non- lawyers.'© Also shown above, Pohl, Witians and Rusnak shared fees with these individuals regarding their BP litigation! o 3. Rule 7.03 (b) & (d) i es: (b) A lawyer shall not pay, give, or offer to pay or give anything of value to a person not licensed to pace la for soliciting prospective clients for, or referring clients or prospective om o, any lawyer or firm, . . . (d) A focal not enter into an agreement for, charge for, or collect a fee for profess} employment obtained in violation of Rule 7.03(a), (b), or (c). TEX. Dwscrunyey R. PROF’L CONDUCT 7.03(b) & (4). Sy 1© See Exhibits 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,41 & 42. 163 See Exhibits 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. 28 Clearly, the evidence provided herein demonstrates that Pohl violated this Rule by paying, giving and offering to pay money to Ladner, Walker, Seymour, Santana, Talley and others.! The agreements attached hereto also prove that Pohl entered into agreements for, charged for and collected a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of Rule 7.03 PEL! 4. Rule 7.06 (a) & (b) provides: oy (a) A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment in a matter When that employment was procured by conduct prohibited by any of Rules 7.01 gh 7.05, 8.04(a))2), or 8.04(a)(9), engaged in by that lawyer personally or by, other person whom the lawyer ordered, encouraged, or knowingly permitted tocenzage in such conduct. (b) A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment in matter when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that employment w ocured by conduct prohibited by any of Rules 7.01 through 7.05, 8.04(a)(2), or SS a)(9), engaged in by any person or entity that is a shareholder, partner, or me ex , an associate in, or of counsel to that lawyer’s firm; or by any other person wh y of the foregoing persons or entities ordered, encouraged, or knowingly pee to engage in such conduct. IN TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF’L CONDUCT 7 06(3) & (b). The evidence above makes it sonal clear that Pohl, Williamson and Rusnak illegally obtained clients through runners. Only.fter Walker was convicted of a felony and sent to prison 2 O did these Lawyers attempt to “ee themselves from the runners and some of the ill-obtained cases. However, Pohl, walgqson and Rusnak kept many of these clients in violation of Rule 7.06(a) & (b). In fact, Po conned to use the same runners with regard to the rollover accident cases he was receiving nd then failed to withdraw in violation of the Rule.!® NS & < 164 See Exhibits 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 & 42 165 dd. 166 Td. 29 5. Rule 8.04 (a)(1)(2)(3)(9) & (12), & (b) provides: (a) A lawyer shall not: (1) Violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client- lawyer relationship; FS (2) Commit a serious crime, or commit any other criminal act that fefec adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (3) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit orinisrepresentation, .. (9) engage in conduct that constitutes barratry as defined by the law of this state; . . . (12) violate any other laws of this state relating to théprofessional conduct of lawyers and to the practice of law. GP (b) As used in subsection (a)(2) of this Rule, “seri @erime” means barratry; any felony involving moral turpitude, any misdem involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent misappropriation of money or o property, or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation of another to commit any <i crimes. TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF’L CONDUCT 7.066940, ),(3),(9) & (12), & (b). O, The overwhelming evidence provided erin, proves that Pohl, Williamson and Rusnak violated each of these Rules. o B. TEXAS PENAL CODE ViouAtio NS 1. Section 38.1204) As shown above, Poht violated Section 38.12(a)(4) of the Texas Penal Code. This section is violated if a "ean intent to obtain an economic benefit...pays or gives or offers to pay oS or give a persggefebney or anything of value to solicit employment.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.12(a)(4). As demonstrated herein, Pohl paid runners, Ladner, Walker, Seymour, Santana, Talley and others Wlions of dollars to solicit and gather clients for Pohl and his cohorts, not only for the 30 BP litigation, but also with regard to rollover cases.!§7 Pohl did so with the intent to obtain the economic benefit of attorney’s fees. Thus, Pohl violated Section 38. 12(a)(4). 2. Sections 38.12(b)(1), (2) & (3): Pohl violated Section 38.12(b)(1), (2) & (3) as well. These sections are viglated when one (1) knowingly finances the commission of an offense under Subsection (a) oF Sesion 38.12, (2) invests funds the person knows or believes are intended to further the commission of an offense under Subsection (a) of Section 38.12 or (3) is a professional who kneel accepts employment within the scope of the person’s license, registration, or crifation that results from the solicitation of employment in violation of Subsection (a) of Seétion 38.12. TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.12(b). Clearly, the evidence provided herein sonst Pohl violated this section of the Texas Penal Code as well.!® KR 3. Section 32.43(b): RS Pohl further violated Section 22.43 th Texas Penal Code (commercial bribery). Section 32.43(b) of the Texas Penal Code prohibits fiduciary — such as a lawyer — from “intentionally or knowingly” soliciting, accepting “or agrecing to accept any benefit from another person on agreement or understanding bart benefit will influence the conduct of the fiduciary in relation to the affairs of his bea TEX. PENAL CODE § 32.43(b). Pohl intentionally or knowingly solicited, accepted, or agreed to accept a benefit from the Runners (the ability to represent Plaintiffs in the rollover sete cases and to obtain the subsequent attorney’s fees therefrom) on the serene’ oF ndestanding that the benefit received would influence the conduct of Pohl in relation to the representation of clients in that Pohl breached duties to his clients as outlined above by engaging in the deceptive barratry scheme. 167 See Exhibits 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 & 42. 168 Tq. 31 it CONCLUSION Although many believe the contrary, no lawyer is above the law. And, although many look the other way when it comes to case running, the violations outlined in this grievance cannot be ignored. To do so, would make a mockery of the profession we call the pate fie It would also serve as a shining example that Texas lawyers are incapable of slyegulaton and that the State of Texas is incapable of preventing our lawyers from not only ting advantage of those in need of legal services in Texas, but in other states as these Lawyef have. The conduct outlined above is some of the most egregious conduct I have seen in more than twenty-years of practicing legal malpractice. If en of these Lawyers is condoned, the State Bar and the Texas Supreme Court should fepeal all of the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and issue an opinion ning all Texas lawyers that this type of conduct is the standard for how lawyers may obtain a ie cases in Texas. Additionally, the statutes regarding barratry will have no meaning and thus, the legislature should simply abolish those statutes as well. 5 & & =) Respectfully submitted, S& &S a , > Lance Christopher Kassab iS S$ 32 Ih LAW FIRM July 3, 2018 ae VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL (timothy.baldwin@texasbar. com) oy Timothy J. Baldwin Be Administrative Attorney “GO The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel XG 4801 Woodway Drive, Suite 315-W °@ Houston, TX 7705661 ©) : ® Re: File No. 201801826: Grievance Concerning di Rusnak File No. 201801825: Grievance Concerning ichael Pohl Dear Mr. Baldwin: Sent with this letter is a copy of the Re ito Ms. Rusnak’s response to the grievance. Attached to the Reply as Exhibit “A” is a copy of M gdalena Santana’s deposition with all of the exhibits.’ The deposition is more than 350 ges long and confirms everything in Ms. Santana’s first affidavit. Of course, Rusnak and Poh-wil undoubted claim that Ms. Santana was coached to say everything she said in her depositién, Owever, Common sense dictates that that would be an impossibility due to the length, breadth and detail within of the deposition. i) Attached to this letter are bits “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” “EB,” “EF” & “G”. Exhibit “A” is a copy of a transcribed conversati etween Lance Kassab and Magdalena Santana wherein she confirms that she was hired by—Precision Marketing to run cases for Pohl and Williamson2 Santana also confirms that Walker, Kirk Ladner and Steve Seymour were hired by Pohl and Williamson.’ Jd. Eve himself has testified in an affidavit that Walker, Ladner and Seymore were his représefitatives.4 The affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” In his affidavit, Pohl states, Ch addition to performing permissible public relations services for me, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, and Robinson (and/or their companies) were my representatives for purposes of perforthing client liaison services, client screening services, and evidence gathering services in co on with BP oil spill claims and/or motor vehicle accident claims.” All this corroborates x Santana has said in her first affidavit which Rusnak and Pohl now argue the Bar should fe} consider. 1 Exhibit “A” * Rusnak has been determined to be Williamson’s partner and a partner in the joint venture to obtain BP cases. See Order from the Mississippi Federal Court attached to grievance. 3 Exhibit “A,” pp. 2, 4 * Exhibit “B,” par. 7 1214 Elgin Street | Houston | Texas | 77004 | p. 713.522.7400 f. 713.522.7410 | www.TexasLegalMalpractice.com Timothy J. Baldwin July 3, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Attached as Exhibit “C,” is the affidavit of Andrew Paul Mozingo who is an expert in computer forensics. Mr. Mozingo pulled the text messages from Scott Walker’s cell phone. The text messages between Walker and Pohl and Walker and Pohl’s paralegal, Edgar Jaimes also corroborates Santana’s testimony from her first affidavit and deposition and shows how these folks would visit hospitals, funerals and homes to sign up clients. Exhibit “D” attached hereto is a spreadsheet showing the prentgs nP and his joint ventures, Williamson and Rusnak paid to non-lawyers. As the Spreads indicates, these runners were always paid their contract percentages of either 30% of the f or 22.5% of the fees.° “GS & Exhibits “E”* and “F”” are documents which show that Pohl, Gniacted clients within days of tragic accidents which claimed the lives of loved ones. These @optacts are clear violations of the Texas Penal Code, Section 38.12(d)(2)(A). This section-de nes one act of barratry as follows: oP (d) A person commits an offense if the persone) (1) Is an attorney, .. . (2) With the intent to obtain Sonal employment for the person or for another, provides or knowi permist to be provided to an individual who has not sought the perso ployment, leg! representation, advice, or care a written communication, 0 a solicitation, including a solicitation in person or by telephone, that: © (A) Concerns Gon for personal injury or wrongful death or otherwise relates to Ge rocident or disaster involving the person to whom the communication or solicitation is provided or a relative of that person and that vad provided before the 31% day after the date on which the accident or ion occurred; Clearly, Poh Violated the penal code in this manner® and thus, violated Texas Disciplinary Rule of Pofesional Conduct, Rule 8.04 and then violated Rule 7.06 by continuing employment. Po cepted employment of these two clients and continued employment with these two clien ark Cheatham, Sr. and Lacy Reese). Moreover, Pohl violated Rule 1.03 by failing to eee this material information to these two clients. > Exhibit “D” ® Exhibit “E” (Email regarding contacting Lacy Reese within days of losing her husband in a rollover accident) 7 Exhibit “F” (Declaration of Mark Cheatham, Sr. wherein he states that he was contacted within a couple of days of the tragic accident that claimed the lives of his loved ones, by people who he later found out were sent there by Michael Pohl) 8 See Exhibits “E” & “F.” See also Pohl deposition (Exhibit “G,” pp. 80-83; 271-273 and 275). Thus, Pohl contacted Mark Cheatham, Sr. and Lacy Reese within days from the tragic accidents that took the lives of their loved ones in violation of the Texas Penal Code. Timothy J. Baldwin July 3, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit “G” is the deposition of Michael Pohl that was recently taken with all exhibits. The deposition is telling in that he conveniently could not recall numerous pertinent fact, refused to answer certain questions, and was generally combative throughout the deposition. Mr. Pohl also accused Kassab of personally breaking into his office in Gulfport Mississippi and stole his files and computers.” Here, Mr. Pohl admits that he was running a law office Mississippi” Mr. Pohl also admits that he has an office in Tennessee.!! However, he i t licensed to practice law in Tennessee. Mr. Pohl is also not licensed to practice law i Mississippi 2 By operating a law firm in Tennessee and Mississippi without a license to practic law in those states appears to violate Rules 5.05 and 7.01. XG) & Additionally, during Mr. Pohl’s deposition he came over to where my client, my nephew, David Kassab and my client were talking and told my client that pe ever wanted to settle his case to give him a call without his lawyers present.!? This appe S to be a violation of Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4.02. G @ - Santana’s affidavit and the corroborating testimony-of Michael Pohl’s paralegal, Edgar Jaimes, prove that Pohl paid Santana $50,000.00 in c rt her agreement not to testify against him.'* This is not only a criminal act, it is a violationof Rules 3.04 and 8.04. RY es Sincerely, S THE KASSAB LAW FIRM © o FZ ES “ O Lance Christopher Kassab Cec: Billy Shepherd (bs So spcounsel.com) Steve Bailey (sbailey(@spcounsel.com) Gregg Weinberg gweinberg(@rmwbhlaw.com) John Zavitsae ey (jzavitsanos(@azalaw.com) Patrick “we ough (pyarborough@azalaw.com) © LCK/sg Sy 9 Exhibit “G,” pp. 87-93. 10 Td. 1] Exhibit “G,” pp. 44-46 (Pohl likely did have his Tennessee website approved by any state bar as well.) 12 Exhibit “G,” pp. 17-18. 13 Exhibit “G,” pp. 226-229, '4 Edgar Jaimes’ deposition transcript will be forwarded next week after it has been transcribed. 15 See Chapter 36 of the Texas Penal Code. LAW FIRM July 20, 2018 ewe ViA ELECTRONIC MAIL (timothy.baldwin@texasbar.com) oy Timothy J. Baldwin 5 & Administrative Attorney eS The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel °F 4801 Woodway Drive, Suite 315-W & Houston, TX 7705661 ® Re: File No. 201801825: Grievance Concerning Michael Pohl Dear Mr. Baldwin: © [am in receipt of Michael Pohl’s Reply sted ly 17, 2018. Again, rather than address the actual merits of the alleged rule violating Pod and his counsel throw more disparaging remarks against me. In fact, essentially all 22 pages of the reply act out against me personally rather than addressing the merits. So ) Of course, there are too MG iicutons remarks to address in a short time, nonetheless, there are several that should bé mentioned. First of all, they criticize me for asking for additional time to address all of te disparaging remarks against me personally in addition to supplementing the gribwanc and then they also criticize me for not addressing the disparaging remarks. As you inay remember, on July 2, 2018, I requested an additional 30 days to respond, wS however, shesy thereafter you told me that I could not be granted 30 days. Therefore, I attempted tp cobble together additional documents that I thought would be pertinent for your review in a short amount of time. With not much time to respond, I thought the documents pertaining to the grievance were more important than addressing Pohl’s personal attacks. Obviously, Pohl and his counsel disagree. 1214 Elgin Street | Houston | Texas | 77004 |p. 713.522.7400 f. 713.522.7410 | www.TexasLegalMalpractice.com Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 2 of 17 Additionally, Pohl and his lawyers state that I have “blatantly” mischaracterized Pohl’s 50,000.00 payment to Magdalena Santana (“Santana”). Unbelievably, Pohl and his lawyers state that the $50,000.00 cash payment was for what they attempt to describe as ajo release” that “included a standard non-disparagement clause. . . .”! Notably, nownefe.in the “agreement” are the words, “non-disparagement.” What is also notable is that Senin crossed out the words “in order to clear my conscience and set the record straight.” She also crossed out the words, “These charges [(referring to the previous claims and ategsion she made against Pohl and others concerning barratry)] were made by me when Sra in dire need of money and not thinking clearly.”? The only inference that can be nade Santana crossing out these statements was that she was thinking with a clear mind win se made the allegations against Pohl and others, that she wanted to set the record seat and that she was not in dire need of money. Not only are my characterizations of the $50,000.00 cash payment accurate, Pohl and his lawyers are hypocrites in that they blatantly” mischaracterize my agreement with an expert witness. Pohl and his lawyers éapanery lie to you by stating over and over and over again that I “knowingly purchased cident records stolen from Pohl and improperly solicited Pohl’s clients based on that itGopiation.” Any examination of the agreement that these lawyers cite to as their proof i assertion contradicts this statement. These lawyers cannot cite to or provide any poo! of their claim. Yet, they contort the truth to disparage me in a feeble ad hominem aitempt to direct the focus away from Pohl. This is truly shameful. 1 Pohl’s Reply, p. 14. ? Exhibit 16 to Pohl’s Reply. 3 Pohl’s Reply, p. 1. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 3 of 17 In any event, in order to make their statement that I have “blatantly” mischaracterized the $50,000.00 cash payment to Santana, these lawyers state, “Rather, the agreement sought to prevent Santana from further ‘publishing’ or relating to third parties her allegations of wrongful eS conduct.” Actually, the agreement that Santana was forced to sign before Reon get paid states: ES nS) FOR THE SUM OF $100 AND OTHER CONSIDERATIO $50,000.00 IN CASH] RECEIVED I AGREE TO TODAY AND FROM EFORTH NOT TO PUBLISH IN WRITING OR BY ELECTRONIC ANY CHARGES OF WRONGDOING, CRIMNAL CONDUCT, ILLEGAL CONDUCT OR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND SHALL NOT RELATE SUCH CHARGES TO ANYONE VERBALLY .* S Agreeing “not publish in writing or by cect mail any charges of wrongdoing, criminal conduct, illegal conduct or unethical uct” against Pohl, and agreeing “not to INN relate such charges [regarding Pohl] to anyovie verbally” is an agreement not to testify against Pohl. Who are these guys kidding? What does this mean? Yet, incredibly, these same lawyers argue to you that a retainer agreement with an expert witness means I “knowingly purchased confidential records sdien from Pohl and improperly solicited Pohl’s clients based on that information.” Their ey remarkable. Another cul tendency to skew the truth may be found on page four of Pohl’s Reply. There, they Eapsesent to you and this forum that: . of NS It is also(uncontroverted that Walker and his partners in the alleged “barratry conspiracy,” Steve Seymour (Seymour”) and Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”), held the es out as having expertise in marketing/public relations services, repre nted to Pohl that they operated under the guidance of experienced issippi attorneys to ensure the propriety of their marketing activities, and did, in fact, obtain review and approval of their marketing activities from several Mississippi lawyers.° * Exhibit 16 to Pohl’s Reply (emphasis added). > Page 4 of Pohl’s Reply (emphasis added). Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 4 of 17 First, these lawyers cite you to page 194-195 of Mr. Walker’s deposition as support for this representation. They make this representation to you as though Mr. Walker testified that he, Ladner and Seymour “operated under the guidance of experienced Mississippi. ‘attorneys to ‘ . . . age . NS ensure the propriety of their marketing activities, and did, in fact, obtain review and approval of their marketing activities from several Mississippi lawyers.” Yet, Mr. Walker says nothing of the sort. In fact, Mr. Walker states the complete opposite. He sate They—when you say approved by many attorneys, that~Qhat’s the contracts, the May 25" and July 15" contracts that have been wri by -- that were written by Pohl and looked at by five or six attorneys. T, are the contracts. Now, the inner workings of $5 million of barratry mate that came through, that’s not attorneys approving that. I mean, this — ) re approving the little generic one-page contracts that I know now today, not’on June 17" of ’13 but today, I know were written just to protect Mr. Pohl abd Mr Williamson.° | WS In fact, Mr. Walker continues to state under oath" We were training the field workers of Jimmy Williamson and Michael Pohl to go agen solicit contracts.”’ Of course, Pohl and his lawyers fail to direct you to this portion, of the testimony. These lawyers must believe that you eO) will simply take their word fae is written in the Reply and not care to read the actual testimony. Additionally, they would rather criticize and disparage me for bringing this conduct to the State Bar’s tention ae the State Bar the truth. Pohl and his Nawyers go on to state that I concealed from Pohl and this forum my of NS possession of atelephone recording of Ms. Santana that “contradicts the factual premise” of the grievance. These lawyers then cherry pick a portion of the transcript they believe contradicts the factual wee of the grievance (which it does not). Again, of course, these lawyers fail to cite the portion of the transcript that fully supports the “premise of the grievance.” Moreover, they 6 Exhibit 3 to Pohl’s Reply, (excerpt of Walker’s depo, p. 195, In. 16 through p. 196, In. 3) (emphasis added). 7 Exhibit 3 to Pohl’s Reply, (excerpt of Walker’s depo, p. 196, Ins. 23-26) (emphasis added). Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 5 of 17 fail to cite to you another transcribed recording of Ms. Santana that further supports the “premise of the grievance.” Regarding the statements made in the first Santana transcript that these layers conceal EN from you, the conversation is this: oy Ms. Santana: Is there any way that I can sue them at all? & S Mr. Kassab: Sue Pohl and those guys? ES °@ Ms. Santana: Pohl and the guys that actually started the Scheme. Scott Walker, Steve Seymore, Kirk Latner (sic). & Mr. Kassab: And Williamson and all those guys? & S Ms. Santana: Yes® ah Mr. Kassab: Yeah, my understandin from talking to you and to other people, was that Pohl and Willia are the ones who came up with it and they just hired Walker and thes olks. Ms. Santana: The marketing? SE) Mr. Kassab: Yeah, the marketing company. Ms. Santana: Chain ef mma I guess. Mr. Kassab: Yost and hired people like you to go out and actually do it. But the iat eting company, my understanding is the marking (sic) guys, were hired by Pohl and Williamson to do all this. They didn’t know how to do Ort. I mean, it wasn’t their idea. Isn’t that your understanding? ge Ms. Santana Yeah. © Mi Kassab: But isn’t that your understanding? Ms. Santana: it makes sense now. I guess it went through a chain of command.’ ® Exhibit 13 to Pohl’s Reply, p. 2-3. ° Exhibit 13 to Pohl’s Reply, pp. 4-5. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 6 of 17 There was no “coax” of Santana. She made these statements of her own free will. In fact, as can be seen in the transcript, the question is asked, “Isn’t that your understanding?” Santana was free to say “no” but she didn’t. Santana confirmed that it was through a chain of command with Pohl and Williamson at the top. Of course, Pohl himself confined this point when he finally admitted in his own affidavit that Walker, Ladner Sr were his representatives.'° In his affidavit, Pohl stated under oath that, “Sk addition to performing permissible public relations services for me, Walker, Seymour, {adner, and Robinson (and/or their companies) were my representatives for purposes of verfoming client liaison services, client screening services, and evidence gathering services connection with BP oil spill claims and/or motor vehicle accident claims.” This admicton confirms what Santana stated in the transcript. Interestingly, although Pohl sie tt hired to Walker, Seymour, Ladner and Robinson to perform “permissible” public ton services for him, Pohl fails to state that he hired these folks to perform “permissible" “client liaison services, client screening services, and evidence gathering services in conneetion with BP oil spill claims and/or motor vehicle accident claims.” Most likely because knew that the services these folks were providing was not “permissible.” ©) Additionally, Pht and his lawyer’s statement that I “concealed” this transcript from the OCDC is preposten@: The transcript supports the grievance, thus, there would be no reason to conceal it. re a so many documents that support the grievance and only so much time to prepare a Btievance, It is surprising that Pohl and his lawyers do not cite some of the thousands of other documents that did not make it into the grievance and state that I “concealed” those as well in their attempt to shine the focus away from Pohl. '° Exhibit “B,” par. 7 attached to July 3, 2018 letter to Mr. Baldwin. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 7 of 17 The second conversation with Santana also supports the “premise of the grievance.” Since Pohl and his lawyers failed to provide you a copy of this conversation, I guess they “concealed” it from you as well. It makes sense that they would intentional} conceal this because it is not only devastating to their position, it shows that one of the awe zo her to sign the second affidavit" that Pohl and his lawyers attempt to use as evidence that the first affidavit SS is false. In the transcript, Santana infers that I should pay her for het help and pay her for the ; SS documents she is in possession of. Of course, I decline. Noneties it is obvious from the full conversation t that she was paid by one of the lawyers to sign the second affidavit. Pohl and his lawyers know this, yet have done nothing to bring this tote tight Rather, they have suppressed this information and even concealed this conversation om you even though they had a copy of the recording when they filed their Reply on sly 7,201 8.1? In any event, I have transcribed the seording and it is attached hereto as Exhibit “1.” In the conversation, Santana states that there aire numerous lawyers in Texas that have approached her to do what she was doing ee She states, “I can name ten lawyers right now that do the same thing in Texas. The thing.”'* Ms. Santana also states, “Michael Pohl was not the only attorney that spproacied me." Santana also states that after researching that I handle malpractice claims agdinst lawyers and what that means in the law industry, she said to herself, IN o I Exhibit 1, per 2 A copy Sao oduced to them on July 9, 2018. '3 Exhibit 1, pp. 7-8 4 Id. p.7. 15 Td. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 8 of 17 “oh, my God, these guys then should be punished. .. ””!* She goes on to state that, “After [Pohl] taught me the ropes, then I would run into other attorneys doing his dirty work. I — other attorneys approached me, you know.”!” She stated that “They’ve even got diplomates involved, embassy. Consulate lawyers and diplomats. It’s a big scheme.”!® Santana sii and states, “Yeah. Well, this is a nationwide scheme, and they’re all over the place. Chey're in New York, they’re in Washington, they’re in Florida. They’re in Texas. Oktaidm, They’re in Mexico over the border, the Paisano brothers, those brothers, these other snore. It’s unreal.””!9 To further support the “premise of the grievance fei Pohl, and to assist you in combing through this evidence, I will cite to you speciforton of the testimony and evidence already provided. If it is not something previously prove it is being provided in the email or a by way of a link referenced therein. If I have invertenty omitted any of the items that I cite, please let me know and I will provide it. LV Walker testified that although he and Pohl called it “marketing services” or “marketing money” it was “clear to [him] it, was barratry? In fact, Walker considered himself and his iS company “a pass-through fot barratry money.””! All total, Walker, Ladner and Precision Marketing received over $5 lion in “barratry pass-through money” from Pohl and other lawyers to solicit acciept victims and potential clients with claims, both auto-accident victims © 16 Td, p. 6. &S 7 Td, pp. 18.0 18 Id. p. SS 19 Id, p. 10. © Deposition of Scott Walker, p. 149. "1 Deposition of Scott Walker, p. 197:6-7. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 9 of 17 and those involved in the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation.” They would use this money to pay contract workers to solicit clients.”> They would locate and instruct contract workers on how to accomplish the solicitation. They trained “40 or 50 people” on how to “go gen solicit contracts,” oy One of these workers was Magdalena Santana (“Santana”). In her September 24, 2016 ; Ss affidavit, Santana testified that Pohl sent her on dozens and dozens ofe r wreck cases all over the country.”* Pohl would email Santana the link of news covedSp depicting the accident and ask her “to go to the victim or the victim’s family and try Ke them to sign up with him.”27 Pohl offered to give Santana “$5,000 per case that [a Sane plus a percentage of his attorney’s fees.”** Santana was advised by Pohl to be peste even if the family ... rejected [her].”’° Santana was instructed by Pohl to “apse the victims and their families while they were vulnerable, in the emergency room the hospital rooms or at the funerals.”2° Pohl told Santana that minorities “were especially vilnerable since they tended not to know that the law prohibited barratry.”>! Aco Fo they “were easier to sign up.”22 © *2 Deposition of Scott Walker, reas 74:1-25; 75-1-15, 3 Deposition of Scott vate 4 Deposition of Scott vale p. 77-78. 25 Deposition of Set Water p. 196-197, 26 Santana atid 17. cal Santana Aiigavi 417. *8 Santana Affidavit, J 18. ?° Santana Affidavit, { 19. %° Santana Affidavit, 7 19. *! Santana Affidavit, {| 19 (emphasis added). Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 10 of 17 Pohl would give Santana “money to give to the victims or their families” but “only if they agreed to sign a Pohl representation contract.”33 Pohl advised Santana that the money was a “foot in the door” but instructed Santana not to mention that she was there on behalf or erver “until after they agreed to take the money.”*4 “If the client agreed to hire Pohl, the [Stang was to have the client sign a ‘Helping Hands’ contract.”°5 Pohl would then give Santana the money to pay the client “from his own Helping Hands company.” When Saplina questioned this, Pohl told Santana that it “was illegal for him to pay [her] directly for ce) and that’s why the money had to go through some company.”37 & Defendants may take the position that Santa rate this affidavit through a December 19, 2017 affidavit produced in this case. Thi purported retraction is likely the result of Pohl paying Santana to provide testimony, wich is something he has done in the past.3? In fact, Pohl’s own paralegal, Edgar Jaimes Caimes, testified that on one occasion Pohl sent him to Florida with a suit case filled with $50,000 cash to give to Santana in exchange for her signing an affidavit for him.*° Jaimes ian Santana would only get the money if she signed the © 2 Santana Affidavit, 19. S 33 Santana Affidavit, J 17. © 34 Santana Affidavit, so 5 Santana Aerial 24 36 Santana ‘ee 424. *7 Santana Affidavit, § 23. *8 December 19, 2017 Santana Affidavit. 39 Exhibit 2 - Deposition of Edgar Jaimes, pp. 371-373. * Exhibit 2 - Deposition of Edgar Jaimes, pp. 371-373, Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 11 of 17 statement for Pohl.*’ Jaimes testified that Santana signed the signed the statement and got the money.” Santana went into more detail about this in her deposition. Santana teste at that the statement was an agreement for her to keep quiet and not charge Pohl with ny srongdoing or criminal or unethical conduct.*? Santana testified that Pohl paid her $50,000 cash to sign this statement, which was delivered by Jaimes in three bags marked “tick reat." Very symbolic given that Santana had been tricked by Pohl into soliciting aliens him and was now being treated the money she claimed was due just to stay quite. Sen iterated that if she didn’t sign the gag agreement, she wouldn’t get the money from Pohl Santana attempted to indicate on the agreement that she was receiving $50,000 to keep quik Jaimes told her Pohl demanded that she state she only received nominal consideain, like $100.%° Santana did not write the statement but “just signed it’4” because ob ta she was “forced to sign” it*® while “under duress.””? Santana’s December 19, 2017 affidavit produced by Pohl in this case is likely the result of similar duress and pacino © “| Exhibit 2 — Deposition of Eager Jaitnes, pp. 373-374. “ Exhibit 2 — Deposition of Bdgar Jaimes, pp. 373-374, 4 Exhibit 3 — Sentane XSi, Vol. I, p. 153. “4 Exhibit 3 — seis Deposition, Vol. I, p. 122-127. 4° Exhibit 3 ~ Sento Deposition, Vol. I, p. 131. 7 echt Sdcotan Deposition, Vol. II, p. 346. 47 Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposition, Vol. I, p. 153. “8 Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposition, Vol. I, p. 155. “? Exhibit 4 — Santana Deposition, Vol. II, p. 309. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 12 of 17 Notably, nowhere in Santana’s December 19" affidavit does she state the testimony in her former affidavit is untrue, only that she does not “agree with” it and that the affidavit is not “reliable.”°? Although Santana states in her December 19" affidavit that her priox affidavit was drafted by a lawyer, Santana testified in her deposition that the Stone 2 affidavit was created voluntarily with her own “testimony.”>' Santana testified that, unbike- with Pohl, she was not paid and had never been promised any money to provide the testing in the September 24 affidavit.** Santana reiterated to counsel for Pohl, Billy sheph& that she was there in her deposition to tell the truth and would not be bullied by his aeftioing or his efforts to confuse her. © Regardless, Santana confirmed most of the fa set forth in her initial affidavit in her deposition™ and this deposition testimony was na etracted. There, Santana confirmed that she was hired by Pohl to solicit auto accident the first one being an accident where a woman and her unborn child lost their lives.° Senfana was instructed by Walker, who was instructed by Pohl, to go to personally visit thec mother of the deceased and sign her up to sue the tire manufacturer — if she suits fo would pay her $5,000.°’ Santana visited the funeral of the s\ a °° December 19, 2017 Sant ffidavit, > Exhibit 4 — Santana 2G Ston, Vol. II, p. 270-271. 52 Exhibit 4 — Sane Deposition Vol. II, p. 276-278. 3 Exhibit 3 — Sontans Deposition, Vol. I, p. 176. 4 Exhibit SQ vane Deposition, Vol. I; Exhibit 4 — Santana Deposition, Vol. II. 55 See December 19, 2017 Santana Affidavit. °° Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposition, Vol, I, p. 37. °” Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposition, Vol, I, p. 37-38. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 13 of 17 deceased and got the family to feel comfortable with her.°® At first the mother was grieving, but Pohl told Santana: “take no prisoners, this is a cut throat business, you get in there and you do whatever it takes to get this client.”°° The solicitation was successful after Pohl gave Santana $2,000 for her to “give to the client to convince her into signing over with he After that, Santana attempted to solicit about “forty to fifty” auto accident cases for Pohl from Texas to Florida.®' About fifteen to eighteen cases were sul signed up. Pohl would send Santana a web link with information about the accident and dre the potential client may be found and she would hit the ground running.® Santana sid clients for Pohl in “hospitals, funeral homes, you name it.” Pohl instructed Santana tng minorities because they are “unrecognized to the law” and “they don’t know he In an effort to circumvent the law, Santana was instructed to have the client call Polis that it would look like the client made the initial contact with the lawyer. Santana wold oer the clients money to sign with Pohl but had explicit instructions from Pohl: “If they don't sign they don't get no money.”®” In short, “no ee *8 Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposition, @) p. 37-38. °° Exhibit 3 — Santana a.) I, p. 39. % Exhibit 3 — Santana Dep4eitidn, Vol. I, p. 40. 5! Exhibit 3 — Santana So, Vol. I, p. 43. 6 Exhibit 3 — Sane Depstn Vol. I, p. 46-47 © Exhibit 3 — Sine Deposition, Vol. I, p. 54. 84 er ee Deposition, Vol. I, p. 52. °° Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposition, Vol. I, p. 52. °° Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposition, Vol. I, p. 60. §7 Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposition, Vol. I, p, 42. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 14 of 17 signature, no money.”® Santana testified in her deposition that was paid $2,500 for every client she signed up and was “promised a percentage in the back end” by Pohl and Walker.© Pohl told Santana that the money would have to go through Walker’s company Precisiqn, Marketing because it “was illegal for him to give [her] the money directly.””° oe Another of Pohl’s solicitors was Kenneth Talley (“Talley”), who Solicited over 20 auto accident cases for Pohl.’ Talley testified that he was first hired by! Walker in relation to BP claims to find “folks that lost money due to the oil spill” and «si hem up” and “get a fee for it.””? Talley went to work “knocking on doors” looking for Sn claimants for Pohl and his partner, Jimmy Williamson (“Williamson”).” Talley sélcted and signed up for Pohl and Williamson more than 800 BP claims.” Talley wa between $75 and $350 for each BP client he signed up.” ~ Talley eventually switched to soliciting aut accident victims and “calling on folks that had bad accidents” with the first being @ Victim that was in “the hospital in intensive care.” Talley carried with him up to get pay the accident victims to “help them with problems” © 68 Exhibit 3 — Santana Deposit, Vol I, p. 66. © Exhibit 3 — Santana Depbsition, Vol. I, p. 47. 7 Exhibit 3 — Santana Depion Vol. I, p. 72. 7 Exhibit 5 — Dep of Kenneth Talley, p. 87. ” Exhibit 5 — Depebition of Kenneth Talley, p. 10. 73 Exhibit SS Merosition of Kenneth Talley, p. 10-11. ™ Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 11. ® Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 19. 7 Exhibit 5 ~ Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 37. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 15 of 17 once they “were signed up.””’ Talley kept a list of all the auto accident cases he solicited.78 Talley followed a checklist that instructed him to, among other things, bring flowers to the initial hospital visit (but to spend no more than $50) and to offer the victims money butte “make sure the funding schedule” from Helping Hands Financing — Donalda Pohl’s cose managed by Pohl’s paralegal Jaimes — “is filled out properly before releasing any cash” Talley would S advise the victims that he had attorneys who could help them, and that ne of those attorneys was NS Pohl.*° Talley was paid a fee of $1,400 plus his expenses by Poh{thtough Walker, for any auto accident case he solicited.*! On some cases, including the Chesifiam case, Talley was to receive a portion of the fee paid to Helping Hands Group out of Poh atomey’ fees.* Talley discussed with Pohl the “percentage of settlements” he was to ser from the cases he solicited and Pohl told Talley that the money was being placed iin “escrow account” for him.®? When asked whether Pohl knew he was getting paid to “ntact vehicle accident victims,” Talley responded, “the money was coming from Edgar [laintes] who worked for him.”** Although his paycheck was from Walker’s company, “tates came by way of Edgar [Jaimes].”® 77 Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenifedt alley, p. 38. Or 78 Exhibit 5 — Deposition ofKehneth Talley, p. 43-44; Exhibit 6— Talley Exhibit 165. 7 ~~ 9 Exhibit 7 — Talley Exhibit 168. 8 Exhibit 5 — Destin of Kenneth Talley, p. 47. 8! Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 47-48. 82 Exhibit 3 Serosition of Kenneth Talley, p. 97-98; 102. * Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 99. %4 Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 100. * Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 100. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 16 of 17 Personally soliciting clients for Pohl became so frequent that Talley began carrying with him blank Pohl contracts to each solicitation.® Talley would refer the potential clients to “attorneys out of Houston that were the best at handling these types of soared would offer to give the potential clients “money up front.”®” Talley would only rcopinii Pohl and no other lawyer.** Talley would have no “reason not to mention Mr. Pohl’s fame.” Talley would not tell the clients that he was getting paid to solicit them.” Talley weil present a Pohl contract to the potential client.”' If the client did not sign up, the clients wid ot get the money.” Talley testified that Edgar and Donalda would send him the money 3? Both Talley and Pohl knew that what they were ding a illegal. In one instance, Talley was “run out of town” while soliciting clients for Poh Talley testified during the attempted solicitation he was told by a “lawyer or police that “it was against the law what [he] was doing.”** Talley mentioned this to Pohl and Pod tol him “‘you’ve just got to leave...some people you can’t help.” S Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Tate, p. 49. 87 Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kennet ‘oy p. 54. 88 Exhibit 5 — Deposition of coh p. 59. % Exhibit 5 — Deposition ofKehneth Talley, p. 108. 5° Exhibit 5 — Deposit Kenneth Talley, p. 58; 109. 5! Exhibit 5 — Destin of Kenneth Talley, p. 89. 92 Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 58-59. 3 Exhibit 3S position of Kenneth Talley, p. 86. * Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 84. °5 Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 84. *6 Exhibit 5 — Deposition of Kenneth Talley, p. 85. Timothy J. Baldwin July 20, 2018 Page 17 of 17 Mr. Baldwin, this is just a fraction of the evidence that I have mounted against Pohl and his conspirators through my efforts to bring my clients justice. I continue to gather evidence as my cases proceed, but I believe the information that has been submitted already. provides more eS than just cause to discipline Pohl and keep him from engaging in these peedtory barratry practices. We are supposed to be a self-regulating profession. I am taking fixe out of my practice eS and my life with my family to inform the State Bar of the unethical coe that I have witnessed WS as I have an obligation to do under the disciplinary rules. I do this Sveh though I get ridiculed and Z) threatened by opposing counsel. I do this because I am hopefuf that the State Bar will protect the public from lawyers like Pohl. © sheet <a KASSAB LAW FIRM & © r © oo @ Lance Christopher Kassab & Cc: Billy Shepherd (shedaspcounselcom Steve Bailey “ee spcounsel.com) aN O LCK/dek & & a 1) <assab LAW FIRM October 19, 2018 vs VIA ELECTRONIC MAU. (timothy.baldwin ‘@texasbar.com) oy Timothy J. Baldwin . & Administrative Attorney ~S The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel 5 eS 4801 Woodway Drive, Suite 315-W & Houston, TX 7705661 a Re: File No. 201801826: Grievance Concernin: di Rusnak File No. 201801825: Grievance Concerni ichael Pohl Dear Mr. Baldwin: J am in receipt of your letters dated October 15, 2018, notifying me that the complaints I filed against Cyndi Rusnak and Michael Pohl een placed on a Summary Disposition Panel docket. My understanding of what this is that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel has recommended that the grievances be summatily dismissed. I have informed you and the Seis Bar that I have a plethora of documents and swom testimony from witnesses and even the actual Tunners who were hired and paid by these lawyers to conduct their illegal and im Oper solicitation of clients and invited you to peruse this evidence as part of your investi mn because it was too much to simply put in the complaint. However, I have never been acted by anyone to come view this evidence, Therefore, no effort to review evidence and/or conduct a meaningful investigation has occurred. Obviously, there truly are good reasongy, our State Bar gets a D minus compared to other State Bars. © I have brought these grievances as I am required to do pursuant to Rule 8.03. However, instead of a thorough vestigation, I have been subjected to insults, criticisms, lies and outright slander as to my°’edrduct and integrity in attempting to uphold the rule of law, the rules of professional duct and the barratry statutes created by the Texas Legislature. It appears to me that the oppo side only needs to state that I have filed these grievances to “gain an advantage in litigation?and the State Bar then summarily dismisses the grievances. Lawyers like me, who handle | alpractice cases, are the ones that see the violations of the rules, yet when we file grievances-we are immediately accused of attempting to gain an advantage in litigation. I can assure you there is never an advantage to filing a grievance while civil litigation is pending. In fact, in my experience, it is a detriment. A while back a lawyer from the State Bar actually admitted to me that there is an unwritten rule at the State Bar to summarily dismiss bar violations when civil litigation is pending. Apparently, this is the case here as well. 1214 Elgin Street | Houston | Texas | 77004 | p. 713.522.7400 £7 13.522.7410 | www.TexasLegalMalpractice.com Timothy J. Baldwin October 19, 2018 Page 2 of 2 The State Bar should abolish Rule 8.03 if it has no meaning. Why follow Rule 8.03 or have the Rule if the State Bar is set on summarily dismissing grievances filed under that Rule without any investigation? Why file ethics complaints at all if there is pending civil litigation if litigation nullifies ethics rules in the eyes of the State Bar? Why bring blatant S violations to the State Bar’s attention if the State Bar refuses to even look at the evid Why have the State Bar “enforce” disciplinary rules when it refuses to any more than wea district attorney’s office can do already, as with theft of client property? AG) SS You can go ahead and file a grievance against me and sanctips me right now because I will no longer follow Rule 8.03. [ will no longer waste my tig pid effort trying to help the State Bar keep unscrupulous lawyers in check by filing ethics plaints when I see corrupt behavior. Instead, I will work harder on exposing lawyers t public at large so, hopefully, Texans will not be harmed by unscrupulous lawyers since tate Bar refuses to do the job it has been given. And, I will work harder on exposing the Texas State Bar’s failings until the day” the State Bar actually tries to protect Texans. Apparently, this is the only way lawyers can actually self-regulate to help the public at large. sh s Sincerely, < THE KASSAB LAW FirM © PP & ~~ Lance Christopher Kassab S Cc: — Randy Sorrels © aN 3 & < LeK/amS |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from filing_id in chain_steps
- 13 rows from filing_id in filing_sections
- 16 rows from filing_id in legal_theories
- 2 rows from filing_id in citations
- 23 rows from filing_id in statutes
- 28 rows from filing_id in key_assertions
- 31 rows from filing_id in key_facts
- 48 rows from filing_id in evidence_referenced
- 0 rows from filing_id in defenses_raised
- 0 rows from filing_id in rulings
- 0 rows from filing_id in appellate_issues