issue_id,name,cluster,relevance,summary,kassab_position,pohl_position,result,appellate_status,authorities
1,TCPA Applicability to Barratry Claims,Threshold,High,"TCPA motion denied at trial court, affirmed on appeal, SCOTX denied review.",Pohl’s claims based on Kassab’s exercise of right to petition; communications protected under TCPA.,Claims not based on protected activity but on illegal conduct (barratry); commercial speech exception applies.,Trial court denied TCPA MTD. 1st COA affirmed (Sep 2020). SCOTX denied review (Feb 2021).,Fully resolved. TCPA inapplicable to barratry-based claims in this context.,"Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 27; Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, 547 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. 2018); Kassab v. Pohl, No. 01-18-01143-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied)."
2,Summary Judgment on Barratry Liability,Substantive,High,Kassab filed 3 MSJs (all denied); Pohl’s barratry partial MSJ went to trial.,No barratry occurred; client solicitation was proper marketing; no prohibited direct contact.,Undisputed evidence showed prohibited solicitation of clients within 31 days of incidents; per se violation of Penal Code § 38.12.,All Kassab MSJs denied. Pohl’s barratry MSJ proceeded to trial. Jury found barratry.,On appeal (1st COA No. 01-24-00220-CV). Opening brief filed Jan 2025.,Tex. Penal Code § 38.12; Tex. Gov’t Code § 82.065; Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a.
3,Counterclaim Viability,Substantive,Moderate,Kassab’s counterclaims dismissed with prejudice on Pohl’s MSJ (Feb 2022).,"Pohl engaged in tortious interference, defamation, and abuse of process.",Counterclaims lacked factual basis and were contradicted by record evidence.,"Counterclaims dismissed with prejudice (Feb 7, 2022).",Not independently appealed. May be raised as cross-issue on appeal.,Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.
4,Responsible Third-Party Designations,Damages,High,"Kassab filed 4 RTP motions; only Favre/Precision designation granted (Aug 2023, one week before trial).",Settled co-defendants Favre and Precision Marketing bore proportionate responsibility for Pohl’s damages.,"RTP designation untimely, procedurally improper, and designed to confuse jury on proportionate responsibility.","RTP designation of Favre/Precision granted Aug 14, 2023 (Kassab’s only procedural win). Jury still found Kassab liable.",May be challenged on appeal (timing/prejudice). Jury verdict mooted practical effect.,Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004; Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.
5,Trade Secret Misappropriation (TUTSA),Substantive,Moderate,Jury found TUTSA violation. Part of compensatory damages.,Information obtained was not protectable trade secrets; no improper means used.,Confidential client lists and case information constituted trade secrets; Kassab obtained them through improper means.,Jury found TUTSA violation. Compensatory damages included trade secret component.,Under appeal. Fee-recovery and damages allocation challenged.,Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.001 et seq.
6,Exemplary Damages (Unanimous Finding),Damages,High,$3M exemplary damages awarded unanimously by jury (2x compensatory).,Conduct did not rise to level warranting exemplary damages; ratio excessive.,"Kassab’s conduct was knowing, intentional, and malicious; barratry is inherently egregious conduct justifying punitive award.","$3,000,000 exemplary damages (unanimous). Approximately 2x compensatory. Court entered judgment on verdict.",Under appeal. Kassab challenges ratio and evidentiary support.,"Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003; BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)."
7,Attorney’s Fee Recovery,Damages,Moderate,"$1.23M in attorney’s fees awarded through trial, plus conditional appellate fees.",Fees excessive and unreasonable; lodestar analysis inflated.,"Fees reasonable given 5+ years of contested litigation, multiple MSJ rounds, and trial. Supported by fee affidavit.","$1,232,013 awarded through trial. Conditional appellate fees of $175K–$375K.",Under appeal. Reasonableness and necessity challenged.,"Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001; Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019)."
8,Serial Amendment Strategy,Threshold,Moderate,"Kassab filed 9 answer versions over 4 years, continually reshaping defenses.",Amendments were proper responses to evolving claims and discovery; leave not required for answers.,"Serial amendments were dilatory, designed to create moving targets, and prejudiced Pohl’s trial preparation.",Court permitted all amendments but none altered outcome. 8th amended answer was final version at trial.,Not independently appealable. Pattern cited as evidence of bad faith litigation conduct.,"Tex. R. Civ. P. 63, 66."
9,Conversion of Settlement Proceeds,Substantive,Low,Part of original claims. Jury found for Pohl. Subsumed in compensatory damages.,No conversion; fees were properly earned under retainer agreements.,Kassab converted settlement funds that belonged to Pohl’s former clients.,Jury found conversion. Included in compensatory damages.,Under appeal as part of sufficiency challenge.,"Tex. Penal Code § 31.03 (by analogy); Waisath v. Lack’s Stores, 474 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1971)."
10,Civil Conspiracy,Substantive,Low,Original claim. Jury found conspiracy between Kassab and co-defendants.,No agreement to engage in unlawful conduct; co-defendants acted independently.,Kassab coordinated with Favre and others to solicit Pohl’s clients through barratrous means.,Jury found civil conspiracy. Joint and several liability with settled co-defendants.,Under appeal. Kassab challenges sufficiency of conspiracy evidence.,"Firestone Steel Prods. Co. v. Barajas, 927 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. 1996)."