theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
328,46,Barratry irrelevance to tort claims,Pohl,claim,"Establishing barratry does not constitute a denial or defense to conversion, TUTSA, or conspiracy claims; does not impact trade secret ownership"
329,46,Trade secret ownership unaffected by barratry,Pohl,claim,"Even if barratry occurred, attorney retains ownership of client list compilations and contract copies; voidability affects enforceability against client, not ownership; TUTSA defines 'owner' as person with rightful, legal, or equitable title per § 134A.002(3-a)"
330,46,No standing to assert barratry,Pohl,claim,"Only State Bar (disciplinary), State of Texas (criminal), and affected clients (civil) have standing to enforce barratry rules; Kassab has none"
331,46,Unlawful Acts Doctrine preemption,Pohl,claim,"Preempted by proportionate responsibility statute per Dugger v. Arredondo, 408 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 2013); 'plain language of section 33.003 clearly indicates that the common law unlawful acts doctrine is no longer a viable defense'"
332,46,Illegality / In Pari Delicto inapplicable,Pohl,claim,"These defenses apply to enforcement of illegal contracts; Pohl asserts no contract claims against Kassab; even if relevant, Pohl's contracts are voidable not void, and none have been voided"
333,46,Justification defense inapplicable,Pohl,claim,"Justification is a defense to tortious interference with contract only (Tex. Beef Cattle, Knox v. Taylor), not conversion, TUTSA, or conspiracy; if acts are 'tortious in themselves,' justification never arises (Prudential)"
334,46,Rule 17.09 Immunity inapplicable,Pohl,claim,Pohl's claims predate Kassab's grievance participation and are not 'predicated upon' the grievance filing; Kassab is not a State Bar official with official-duties immunity
335,46,Unclean hands inapplicable,Pohl,claim,Applies only to equitable relief (Pohl no longer seeks any); requires nexus and injury to person raising defense (Wood v. Wiggins); alleged barratry did not injure Kassab
336,46,Contract-related defenses inapplicable,Pohl,claim,"Release, accord and satisfaction, estoppel apply to contract claims — Pohl asserts none; 'subject to valid contract' (express contract defense) applies only to quantum meruit (Pepi Corp.); Kassab admitted these don't apply"
337,46,Assumption of risk / contribution eliminated,Pohl,claim,"Texas Supreme Court held these common law defenses no longer exist; concepts survive only in proportionate responsibility statute (Austin v. Kroger, 465 S.W.3d at 209-10)"