Legal Theories

509 claims, defenses, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses

Data license: Public court records

509 rows

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

theory_id ▼ filing_id theory party role basis
1 1 1 Breach of Contract — Settlement Agreement Pohl claim Favre and Precision breached the Confidential Settlement Agreement by failing to return documents, failing to delete ESI, causing claims and legal actions to be filed against Pohl, and assisting Kassab and co-counsel in pursuing claims against Pohl
2 1 1 Conversion — common law tort Pohl claim All Defendants wrongfully assumed and exercised dominion and control over Pohl's confidential information and property in contravention of Pohl's ownership rights — Favre/Precision/Nicholson by stealing it, Kassab/Montague by knowingly purchasing it, and all by maintaining and using it
3 1 1 Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.001 et seq. Pohl claim Defendants willfully and maliciously misappropriated Pohl's trade secrets by acquiring them through theft (§ 134A.002(2), (3)(A)), disclosing them without consent (§ 134A.002(3)(B)), and using them without consent (§ 134A.002(3)(B))
4 1 1 Civil Conspiracy Pohl claim Defendants acted in combination with the agreed object of misappropriating trade secrets and converting property, committing unlawful overt acts that proximately caused damages
5 2 2 Civil Barratry — counterclaim based on assigned claims Kassab counterclaim Counterclaim based on 150 express assignments of barratry claims from Pohl's former clients who were allegedly illegally solicited. Because barratry is not legal malpractice (per Pohl's judicial admission), the discovery rule does not apply and assignment is permitted under Texas law.
6 2 2 Compulsory Counterclaim Timeliness — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.069 Kassab counterclaim Counterclaims arising from same transaction or occurrence may be filed even if independently barred by limitations, if filed within 30 days of answer deadline. Filed contemporaneously with answer; remaining claims to be filed by November 7, 2018.
7 2 2 Statute of Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations
8 2 2 Justification Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's actions were justified
9 2 2 Estoppel Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is estopped from asserting claims
10 2 2 Waiver Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl waived his claims
11 2 2 Ratification Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl ratified the conduct complained of
12 2 2 Release Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl released Kassab from liability
13 2 2 Unclean Hands Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own misconduct (barratry) bars his claims in equity
14 2 2 Contribution Kassab affirmative_defense Other parties share responsibility for any damages
15 2 2 Failure to Mitigate Damages Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl failed to mitigate his damages
16 2 2 Lack of Standing Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl lacks standing to assert claims
17 2 2 Accord and Satisfaction Kassab affirmative_defense Claims were resolved by accord and satisfaction
18 2 2 Assumption of the Risk Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl assumed the risk of the alleged harm
19 2 2 Illegality/Criminal Acts Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own illegal conduct (barratry) bars recovery
20 2 2 First Amendment Kassab affirmative_defense First Amendment protects Kassab's conduct (petition and speech rights in filing lawsuits and grievances)
21 2 2 Attorney Immunity Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab is immune from suit for actions taken in his capacity as an attorney
22 2 2 In Pari Delicto Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is equally at fault and thus barred from recovery
23 3 3 Defense against barratry allegations — characterizing agreements as legitimate PR/marketing service contracts Pohl defense Pohl asserts his contracts with PR Consultants were for legitimate hourly-rate public relations and client liaison services with a percentage-of-fees cap, not barratry fee-sharing agreements. PR Consultants' own claims in Federal Court Lawsuit confirmed hourly-rate basis.
24 3 3 PR Consultants acted independently and in violation of their contracts Pohl defense PR Consultants were solely responsible for hiring, supervising, and controlling employees; any improper solicitation was done in violation of their contractual obligations to comply with all applicable rules. Their Mississippi attorneys reviewed and approved all contracts.
25 3 3 Theft and misappropriation by PR Consultants Pohl claim PR Consultants stole client files (17 containers), computers (4), and data; sent falsified invoices; charged fictitious expenses; diverted clients to competitors; sold stolen property to Favre who sold to Kassab
26 3 3 Unauthorized use of Pohl's name by third parties Pohl defense Julia Porter and Monica Chaney operated unauthorized website using Pohl's name; some client contacts may have been made by unauthorized individuals, not by or at direction of Pohl
27 4 4 Special Appearance — lack of personal jurisdiction (Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a) Montague defense Montague Defendants are non-residents of Texas and challenge the court's personal jurisdiction over them via previously filed special appearance; this answer filed subject to that special appearance
28 4 4 Lack of Standing / No Duty Owed / Attorney Immunity Montague affirmative_defense No attorney-client relationship with Pohl; not party to underlying litigation or settlement; referral of cases to specialists is traditional legal service providing attorney immunity from liability; no basis to assert liability for conversion, trade secrets, conspiracy, or otherwise against attorneys discharging traditional legal tasks
29 4 4 Failure to State a Claim — conspiracy requires viable underlying tort Montague affirmative_defense Under Texas law, if defendant's liability for alleged underlying tort is foreclosed as matter of law, there is no claim for conspiracy (Frankoff v. Norman, 448 S.W.3d 75, 87). Plaintiffs' only link to Montague is bald assertion they 'knew' information was stolen, which has no factual basis.
30 4 4 Comparative Responsibility / Contributory Negligence — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 33 Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' own unreasonable actions charted the course for this dispute; Montague asserts right to reduction of liability based on comparative responsibility of Plaintiffs, other Defendants, settling defendants, and responsible third parties
31 4 4 Excuse, Legal Justification, and Good Faith Montague affirmative_defense Montague's actions were excused, legally justified, or taken in good faith
32 4 4 No Legally Cognizable Damages / Failure to Mitigate Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs suffered no legally cognizable damages and/or failed to mitigate damages
33 4 4 Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs failed to satisfy all necessary conditions precedent to maintaining their claims
34 4 4 Estoppel Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel
35 4 4 Waiver Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver
36 4 4 Unclean Hands Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands
37 4 4 Illegality Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by illegality (Pohl's own illegal conduct)
38 4 4 Statute of Limitations Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations
39 4 4 Chapter 41 Limitations on Exemplary Damages — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 41 Montague affirmative_defense Montague asserts statutory limitations on exemplary damages
40 6 6 Civil Barratry — Tex. Gov't Code § 82.0651 Kassab claim Civil liability statute for prohibited barratry allowing solicited victims to recover $10,000 penalty, actual damages, and attorney's fees; to be 'liberally construed'
41 6 6 Criminal Barratry — Tex. Penal Code § 38.12(a)(4) Kassab claim Pohl committed third-degree felony by paying money to persons to solicit employment with intent to obtain economic benefit
42 6 6 Criminal Barratry — Tex. Penal Code § 38.12(b)(1), (2), (3) Kassab claim Pohl financed barratry, invested funds to further barratry, and knowingly accepted employment resulting from barratrous solicitation
43 6 6 Criminal Barratry — Tex. Penal Code § 38.12(d)(2)(A) Kassab claim Pohl provided or permitted solicitation of accident/disaster victims within 30 days of the accident — specifically the Cheatham and Reese cases
44 6 6 Commercial Bribery — Tex. Penal Code § 32.43(b) Kassab claim Pohl as a fiduciary solicited, accepted, or agreed to accept benefit from runners on understanding it would influence his conduct in relation to client affairs
45 6 6 Improper Fee Division — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.04(f)(1)&(2), (g) Kassab claim Pohl, Williamson, and Rusnak divided fees without proper client consents in writing as required; contracts devoid of mandated Rule 1.04 language
46 6 6 Failure to Disclose — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.03 Kassab claim Pohl failed to disclose material information about barratry to clients Cheatham and Reese
47 6 6 Failure to Withdraw — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.15(a)(1) Kassab claim Pohl failed to withdraw from representations procured by barratry, keeping many ill-gotten clients
48 6 6 Fee Sharing with Non-Lawyers — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 5.04(a), (d)(1) Kassab claim Pohl shared attorney's fees with Walker, Ladner, Seymour, Santana, Talley, and other non-lawyers regarding both BP and rollover cases
49 6 6 Paying for Solicitation — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 7.03(b), (d) Kassab claim Pohl paid, gave, and offered to pay money to unlicensed persons for soliciting and referring clients, and collected fees from employment obtained through such solicitation
50 6 6 Advertising Violations — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 7.05(a), (c) Kassab claim Listed in violations section of Exhibit A
51 6 6 Continuing Improperly Obtained Employment — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 7.06(a), (b) Kassab claim Pohl accepted and continued employment procured by prohibited solicitation and continued using runners for rollover cases even after Walker's conviction
52 6 6 Serious Crime / Barratry / Fraud — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 8.04(a)(1)-(4), (a)(9), (a)(12), (b) Kassab claim Pohl violated rules by committing barratry (a 'serious crime'), engaging in fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and violating laws relating to practice of law
53 6 6 Unauthorized Practice of Law — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 5.05, 7.01 Kassab claim Pohl operated law offices in Mississippi and Tennessee without being licensed to practice in those states
54 6 6 Communication with Represented Person — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 4.02 Kassab claim Pohl approached Kassab's client during deposition and told him to call directly to settle without lawyers present
55 6 6 Obstruction / Witness Tampering — Tex. Penal Code Chapter 36; Rules 3.04 and 8.04 Kassab claim Pohl paid Santana $50,000 cash for agreement not to testify against him
56 7 7 Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA/Anti-SLAPP) — Right of Free Speech (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(3)) Kassab defense Pohl's lawsuit targets communications made in connection with matters of public concern — barratry lawsuits and grievances discussing illegal attorney conduct; legal services constitute 'services in the marketplace'
57 7 7 TCPA — Right to Petition (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(4)) Kassab defense Filing barratry lawsuits and State Bar grievances are communications made in or about judicial and governmental proceedings
58 7 7 TCPA — Right of Association (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(2)) Kassab defense Kassab joined with his clients to collectively pursue their common interest in bringing barratry claims against Pohl
59 7 7 Attorney Immunity Doctrine (Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd) Kassab affirmative_defense All complained-of conduct — obtaining client information, filing lawsuits, filing grievances — falls within the scope of client representation; Highland Capital directly analogous
60 7 7 Statute of Limitations (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 16.003, 16.010) Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl knew of his claims in 2014 (moved from Gulfport office, learned from secretary clients were diverted, Mississippi Litigation discovery began October 2014) but did not file until August 2018, exceeding the 2-year conversion/conspiracy and 3-year TUTSA limitations periods
61 7 7 Res Judicata / Claims Preclusion Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl sued Precision Marketing for conversion, fraud, and unjust enrichment in the Mississippi Litigation based on the same transactions; settled with prejudice on April 21, 2017
62 7 7 Failure to Establish Conversion — Lack of Ownership Kassab defense Precision Marketing, not Pohl, owned the client lists and marketing information according to Favre's testimony
63 7 7 Failure to Establish TUTSA Claim — Not Trade Secrets Kassab defense Client names and addresses are publicly known and not trade secrets; Kassab reasonably believed Precision Marketing owned the materials
64 8 8 Civil Barratry — counterclaim based on assigned claims Kassab counterclaim Counterclaims on behalf of 150 assigned barratry claimants whose claims were illegally solicited by Pohl through paid runners. Because barratry is not legal malpractice (per Pohl's judicial admission), assignment is permitted.
65 8 8 Compulsory Counterclaim Timeliness — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.069 Kassab counterclaim Counterclaims arising from same transaction may be filed even if barred by limitations, if filed within 30 days of the answer. Filed contemporaneously; remaining by November 7, 2018.
66 8 8 Statute of Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims are time-barred
67 8 8 Justification Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's conduct was justified
68 8 8 Estoppel Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is estopped from asserting claims
69 8 8 Waiver Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl waived his claims
70 8 8 Ratification Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl ratified the conduct complained of
71 8 8 Release Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl released Kassab from liability
72 8 8 Unclean Hands Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own illegal barratry precludes equitable relief
73 8 8 Contribution Kassab affirmative_defense Other parties share responsibility for any damages
74 8 8 Failure to Mitigate Damages Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl failed to mitigate his damages
75 8 8 Lack of Standing Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl does not own the allegedly converted property
76 8 8 Accord and Satisfaction Kassab affirmative_defense Claims resolved by accord and satisfaction
77 8 8 Assumption of the Risk Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl assumed the risk of the alleged harm
78 8 8 Illegality/Criminal Acts Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims arise from his own criminal conduct (barratry)
79 8 8 First Amendment Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's conduct is protected speech, petition, and association
80 8 8 Attorney Immunity Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's conduct falls within scope of client representation
81 8 8 In Pari Delicto Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is equally at fault
82 8 8 Res Judicata Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims were or should have been litigated in the Mississippi Litigation (new defense added in this amended answer)
83 9 9 TCPA Does Not Apply — Claims Not Based on Protected Conduct Pohl defense Pohl's conversion, TUTSA, and conspiracy claims are based on wrongful acts (purchasing stolen property, misappropriating trade secrets), not on protected speech, petition, or association
84 9 9 TCPA Commercial Speech Exception (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.010(b)) Pohl defense Even if TCPA applies, Kassab is primarily engaged in selling legal services, his solicitation of Pohl's clients arose from commercial transactions, and the intended audience was potential customers — satisfying all four Castleman elements
85 9 9 Conversion Pohl claim Kassab knowingly purchased confidential information and materials stolen from Pohl and wrongfully exercised dominion and control over Pohl's property
86 9 9 Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 134A) Pohl claim Kassab purchased Pohl's trade secrets knowing they had been acquired by improper means (theft) without Pohl's consent
87 9 9 Civil Conspiracy Pohl claim Kassab acted in combination with Favre, Nicholson, Montague, and others to commit conversion and trade secret misappropriation
88 9 9 Statute of Limitations Not Expired Pohl defense Favre-Kassab Agreement executed November 10, 2016; suit filed August 2018 — within 2-year conversion period and 3-year TUTSA period
89 9 9 Attorney Immunity Inapplicable Pohl defense Attorney immunity protects conduct within scope of client representation; Kassab had no clients at the time of the wrongful purchase
90 9 9 Res Judicata Inapplicable Pohl defense Kassab was not a party to the Mississippi settlement; claims against Kassab are not the 'same as' claims settled in that case
91 10 10 Evidentiary Objection — Defective Affidavit (Lack of Personal Knowledge) Kassab defense Shepherd's affidavit fails to meet requirements of Tex. R. Evid. 602 because it is not based on personal knowledge and does not state facts are true and correct — perjury does not attach
92 10 10 Evidentiary Objection — Failed Business Records Foundation (Tex. R. Evid. 803(6), 902(10)) Kassab defense Shepherd fails to establish all six elements required for business records exception; fails to show he is custodian of records; failed to provide requisite notice
93 10 10 Evidentiary Objection — Hearsay Upon Hearsay Kassab defense All documents attached to the Shepherd affidavit are inadmissible hearsay upon hearsay
94 10 10 Evidentiary Objection — Conclusory Affidavit (No Evidence as Matter of Law) Kassab defense Pohl's declaration paragraphs 3-9 contain only conclusions without underlying facts, which do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence
95 10 10 Client Ownership of Files (Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.15(d)) Kassab defense Attorney files belong to the client, not the attorney; Pohl has no ownership claim over client files; attorney is agent of client
96 10 10 Lack of Standing — Pohl Never Owned Subject Documents Kassab defense Documents came from Precision Marketing Group (owned by Favre), not Pohl; even if they were Pohl's legal files, client files belong to clients; Pohl lacks standing to sue for conversion or trade secret theft
97 10 10 TCPA Commercial Exception Inapplicable (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.010(b)) Kassab defense Pohl has not proven all four Castleman elements; purchasing marketing lists is not a commercial transaction involving legal services; Kassab is not primarily engaged in purchasing marketing lists; party asserting exemption bears burden of proving applicability
98 11 11 Civil Barratry (expanded counterclaim — 235 claimants) Kassab counterclaim Counterclaims based on express assignments from 235 barratry victims whose cases were illegally solicited by Pohl; Pohl judicially admitted barratry is not legal malpractice, so assignment is permitted
99 11 11 Compulsory Counterclaim Timeliness (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.069) Kassab counterclaim Counterclaims arising from same transaction may be filed within 30 days of the answer even if independently barred by limitations
100 11 11 Designation of Responsible Third Parties Kassab defense Billy Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, and Ladner are the sole or proximate cause of any damages alleged by Pohl; Shepherd failed to protect Pohl's interests in Federal Litigation settlement; the runners sold and transferred all property to Favre

Next page

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE legal_theories (
    theory_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    theory TEXT,
    party TEXT,
    role TEXT,
    basis TEXT
);