issue_id,name,cluster,relevance,summary,kassab_position,pohl_position,result,appellate_status,authorities
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.
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.
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."