theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
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,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,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,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"
25,3,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"
40,6,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,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,"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,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,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,"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,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,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,"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,"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,"Advertising Violations — Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 7.05(a), (c)",Kassab,claim,Listed in violations section of Exhibit A
51,6,"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,"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,"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,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,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"
85,9,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,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,Civil Conspiracy,Pohl,claim,"Kassab acted in combination with Favre, Nicholson, Montague, and others to commit conversion and trade secret misappropriation"
141,14,Breach of Contract,Pohl,claim,Favre and Precision breached the Confidential Settlement Agreement by causing claims to be made and filed against Pohl and failing to return confidential materials
142,14,Conversion,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; damages exceed $250,000"
143,14,Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (TUTSA) — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.001 et seq.,Pohl,claim,"Defendants willfully and maliciously misappropriated Pohl's trade secrets through acquisition by improper means (theft), disclosure via sale without consent, and unauthorized use"
144,14,Civil Conspiracy,Pohl,claim,"Defendants acted in combination with agreed object of unlawfully misappropriating trade secrets and converting property, committing overt unlawful acts that proximately caused damages"
149,15,Prima Facie Case Under TCPA — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.005(c),Pohl,claim,"Even if TCPA applies, Pohl establishes prima facie case by clear and specific evidence for all four causes of action (breach of contract, conversion, TUTSA, conspiracy)"
237,29,Bad Faith TUTSA Claims — Attorney's Fees (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.005),Kassab,claim,"All or some of Plaintiffs' claims for misappropriation under TUTSA were made in bad faith, enabling Defendants to recover reasonable attorney's fees"
252,31,Bad Faith TUTSA Claims — Attorney's Fees (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.005),Kassab,claim,Kassab entitled to attorney's fees if Pohl's TUTSA claims made in bad faith
272,35,Civil Conspiracy,Pohl,claim,"Defendants combined to accomplish conversion and trade secret misappropriation, reaching meeting of the minds through emails and agreements starting September 2016, engaging in overt unlawful acts (conversion and misappropriation), causing damages including attorneys' fees and market value of property"
273,35,Conversion,Pohl,claim,"Defendants assumed unauthorized dominion and control over Pohl's personal property (client lists, contracts, files, computers) to the exclusion of Pohl's rights, without permission, and refused demands for return"
274,35,TUTSA - Trade Secret Misappropriation,Pohl,claim,"Defendants knowingly acquired Pohl's trade secrets (client lists, contracts, proprietary information) by improper means through scheme with Favre, then used them to solicit Pohl's clients for barratry claims; trade secrets had independent economic value and were protected by reasonable measures"
277,36,Conversion,Pohl,claim,"Defendants purchased and used Pohl's stolen confidential information, client contracts, and files without authorization"
278,36,TUTSA - Trade Secret Misappropriation,Pohl,claim,Defendants knowingly acquired and used Pohl's trade secrets obtained through improper means; damages include actual loss from defending barratry litigation
279,36,Civil Conspiracy,Pohl,claim,Defendants combined to accomplish conversion and misappropriation of Pohl's trade secrets
290,38,Future damages do not justify abatement (rebuttal),Pohl,claim,Texas law requires parties to bring claims even when all damages have not occurred (Schlumberger v. Pasko); future damages assessed by reasonable probability standard (GTE Mobilnet v. Pascouet)
291,38,Unlawful Acts Doctrine preemption (rebuttal),Pohl,claim,Texas Supreme Court in Dugger v. Arredondo held the doctrine is 'no longer a viable defense' under § 33.003; confirmed in Boerjan v. Rodriguez; Kassab himself acknowledged this in Beatty v. Knighton
297,41,Privilege claims under Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4,Pohl,claim,Pohl asserts privilege objections to discovery requests and files supporting declaration as required by Rule 193.4
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)"
408,58,Trade Secret Misappropriation under TUTSA (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A),Pohl,claim,Kassab misappropriated Pohl's trade secrets including attorney-client fee contracts and client identity/contact information lists. Jury found in Pohl's favor on Q1 and Q2.
409,58,Conversion,Pohl,claim,"One of three claims tried at trial (alongside trade secrets and conspiracy). Referenced in procedural history at trial commencement on August 21, 2023."
410,58,Civil Conspiracy,Pohl,claim,"Kassab conspired with Favre, Nicholson, and Montague to misappropriate trade secrets (Q15), creating joint and several liability that eliminates proportionate fault reduction."
411,58,Exemplary Damages for Willful and Malicious Misappropriation (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.005),Pohl,claim,"Jury unanimously found willful and malicious misappropriation (Q8 and Q17), authorizing $3,000,000 in exemplary damages (Q19)."
412,58,Statutory Attorneys' Fees under TUTSA (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.005(3)),Pohl,claim,TUTSA authorizes attorneys' fees when willful and malicious misappropriation exists; jury found this in Q8.
413,58,Prejudgment Interest (Tex. Fin. Code § 304.104),Pohl,claim,Prejudgment interest accrues from date suit is filed to day before judgment at rate equal to postjudgment rate (8.50%).
414,58,Postjudgment Interest (Tex. Fin. Code § 304.001),Pohl,claim,Statute mandates money judgment specify postjudgment interest rate; rate is 8.50% based on prime rate.
423,60,Presumption jury followed instructions (Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare),Pohl,claim,Jury presumed to follow instructions requiring unanimity for Q17; Q19 predicated on unanimous Q17 answer provides affirmative evidence of unanimity
424,60,Waiver of jury verdict objection (USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca; Tex. R. Civ. P. 295),Pohl,claim,"Party seeking to avoid effect of jury answers must object before jury is discharged; Kassab failed to do so, waiving the alleged conflict"
425,60,TUTSA actual loss encompasses attorneys' fees from separate proceedings,Pohl,claim,Broad definition of actual loss under TUTSA includes consequential damages; flexible and imaginative approach to trade secret damages; Akin Gump confirms fees from separate proceedings are recoverable as actual damages
426,60,Tort of another doctrine (Dixon Fin. Services v. Chang),Pohl,claim,Equitable principles allow recovery of attorney's fees as actual damages when party required to prosecute or defend prior legal action as consequence of defendant's wrongful act; 'wholly innocent' requirement disputed
427,60,TUTSA authorizes both actual loss and unjust enrichment (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.004),Pohl,claim,"Statute expressly permits recovery of both; jury was instructed not to award duplicative damages; market value = forward loss, development costs = past unjust enrichment"
428,60,"Conspiracy creates joint and several liability, not preempted by TUTSA or Chapter 33",Pohl,claim,"Conspiracy is a means of imposing joint and several liability, not an independent claim with conflicting remedy; published Texas appellate caselaw (Guillory, Stephens) rejects Chapter 33 preemption; TUTSA preemption only applies to conflicting remedies"
429,60,Jury findings on Precision and Kassab are consistent; Kassab obtained secrets from Favre,Pohl,claim,"Kassab obtained trade secrets from Favre via November 2016 agreement, not from Precision; jury could find Precision lawfully obtained info while working for Pohl and separately find Kassab's post-acquisition use constituted misappropriation"
430,60,Waiver of jury verdict inconsistency (Bryan v. Papalia; Bruce v. Oscar Renda),Pohl,claim,Kassab waived right to object based on alleged inconsistency in jury verdict by not asserting objections before jury dismissal
436,62,Burden on defendant to object to incomplete/conflicting verdict under TRCP 295 and Menchaca,Pohl,claim,Party relying on conflicting answer to avoid effect of answers establishing liability bears burden to object before jury discharged; Kassab failed to object and waived the issue
437,62,"Unanimity certificate not required for exemplary damages when predicate instructions required unanimity (Bruce, Stover)",Pohl,claim,Not all predicate answers require a certificate of unanimity; jury's answers conditioned on unanimity are sufficient; signed certificate not necessary for award of exemplary damages
438,62,TUTSA actual loss includes attorneys' fees from prior litigation (§ 134A.004(a)),Pohl,claim,"Under plain text of TUTSA, jury-found damages measured by attorneys' fees in other cases caused by misappropriation are recoverable as 'actual loss'"
439,62,"Tort of another doctrine with no clean hands requirement (Dixon, Massey, Lesikar, Standard Fire, Symetra)",Pohl,claim,Published precedent allows recovery; no clean hands or wholly innocent party requirement exists; Kassab does not argue Pohl fails to satisfy Dixon's elements; unclean hands defense requires showing injury to defendant from plaintiff's conduct (Wood v. Wiggins) which Kassab cannot show
440,62,Conspiracy not preempted by TUTSA (Whitlock),Pohl,claim,Texas courts permit joint and several liability through conspiracy for trade secret misappropriation; Kassab has no caselaw finding there can no longer be a conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets; Kassab's inconsistent position (proportionate responsibility not preempted but conspiracy is) is unexplained
441,62,Kassab's liability independent of Precision — Kassab obtained secrets from Favre,Pohl,claim,Jury never found Kassab received trade secrets from Precision; evidence showed Favre sold them to Kassab; jury found Favre misappropriated; Kassab designated Precision as responsible third party and failed to secure necessary findings
442,64,Trade Secret Misappropriation under TUTSA,Pohl,claim,"Jury found Pohl owned trade secrets (attorney-client fee contracts and client lists) and Kassab, Favre, Nicholson, and Montague misappropriated them (Q1-Q2). Jury found misappropriation was willful and malicious (Q8, Q17)."
443,64,Civil Conspiracy (Trade Secret Misappropriation),Pohl,claim,"Jury found Kassab conspired with Favre, Nicholson, and Montague to misappropriate trade secrets (Q15). Precision found not part of conspiracy."
444,64,Exemplary Damages for Willful and Malicious Misappropriation,Pohl,claim,"Jury unanimously found by clear and convincing evidence that misappropriation was willful and malicious (Q17) and unanimously awarded $3,000,000 exemplary damages (Q19)."
489,67,Waiver of jury charge objections (Tex. R. Civ. P. 274),Pohl,claim,Kassab waived Q2 and Q3 objections by failing to raise them at charge conference; cannot raise for first time in motion for new trial
490,67,Waiver of verdict inconsistency objection (Bryan v. Papalia),Pohl,claim,Kassab waived right to object to alleged inconsistency by not asserting before Court dismissed jury
491,67,Unlawful acts doctrine preempted by proportionate responsibility (Dugger v. Arredondo),Pohl,claim,Texas Supreme Court found common law unlawful acts doctrine no longer viable defense; reasoning applies to TUTSA claims; Kassab cannot claim benefit of proportionate responsibility while seeking conflicting doctrine
492,67,No privilege to misappropriate trade secrets,Pohl,claim,No Texas case law supports claimed privilege; Alderson distinguishable; Kassab asks Court to be first in Texas to adopt such privilege
493,67,Attorney immunity requires attorney-client relationship at time of conduct (Youngkin),Pohl,claim,No attorney-client relationship existed when Kassab used trade secrets for mass solicitation before having clients
494,67,Grievance immunity inapplicable — claim predates grievance filing,Pohl,claim,"Misappropriation claim accrued upon acquisition/use of information, which occurred before any grievance filed by Kassab"
495,67,Judicial proceedings privilege limited to libel/slander (Landry's),Pohl,claim,Gravamen of Pohl's complaint is not reputational harm but actual losses from misappropriation that occurred before any proceeding
496,67,TUTSA actual losses include attorney fees — flexible approach (Sw. Energy),Pohl,claim,Flexible and imaginative approach to trade secret damages; fees from other cases constitute actual losses
497,67,Tort of another doctrine permits recovery (Dixon Fin. Servs.),Pohl,claim,Equitable principles allow recovery of attorney fees as actual damages when party required to prosecute/defend prior action as consequence of defendant's wrongful act
498,67,"Property owner rule applies to intangible property (Custom Transit, Jabri)",Pohl,claim,Binding precedent confirms property owner rule applies even to intangible property; Pohl's opinion testimony on trade secret value was proper
499,67,Conspiracy not preempted by TUTSA,Pohl,claim,Conspiracy does not provide conflicting remedy — it makes same TUTSA remedy apply jointly and severally; no more inconsistent than proportionate responsibility which Kassab argues is applicable
500,67,Exemplary damages unanimously found and properly awarded,Pohl,claim,"Jury unanimously found willful/malicious misappropriation; $3M complies with statutory 2x cap on actual damages over $2M; evidence of orchestrated scheme, lies to jury, unprecedented grievance publicity"
501,67,"Barratry counterclaims properly dismissed — res judicata, no § 16.069 tolling, non-assignable",Pohl,claim,Same claims resolved by prior final judgments; claims don't arise from same transaction; punitive statutory claim not expressly assignable; assignments against public policy
502,68,"Presumption jury followed unanimity instructions (Columbia Rio Grande, Bruce, Stover)",Pohl,claim,Jury instructed to only answer Q17 'Yes' if unanimous and to only answer Q19 if unanimous on Q17; jury's affirmative answers demonstrate unanimity
503,68,"Harmonization of jury findings (Menchaca, Bender, Luna, Jackson)",Pohl,claim,Court must reasonably construe jury findings to harmonize them; failure to do so is reversible error
504,68,"Waiver of alleged verdict conflict (Menchaca, Burbage, Fleet, R. 295)",Pohl,claim,Kassab failed to object before jury discharged; party relying on conflicting answers bears burden to timely object
505,68,TUTSA actual loss encompasses consequential damages including separate-proceeding attorney fees,Pohl,claim,Broad plain meaning of 'actual loss'; flexible and imaginative approach (Sw. Energy); distinguished from same-lawsuit fees; Akin Gump permits recovery
506,68,Tort of another doctrine (Dixon Fin. Servs.),Pohl,claim,"Equitable recovery of attorney fees when party required to defend prior action as consequence of wrongful act; no wholly innocent party element (Naschke, Brannan Paving)"
507,68,TUTSA authorizes both actual loss and unjust enrichment (§ 134A.004(a)),Pohl,claim,"Statute expressly permits both; market value = forward loss, development costs = past unjust enrichment; not duplicative because unjust enrichment disgorges gains rather than compensating loss"
508,68,"Conspiracy as rule of vicarious liability, not preempted (Agear Corp.)",Pohl,claim,"Not independent tort but rule of joint liability; Chapter 33 doesn't supersede (Guillory, Stephens); no conflicting remedy — merely makes TUTSA damages joint and several"
509,68,Pohl is prevailing party entitled to TUTSA attorney fees (§ 134A.005),Pohl,claim,Actual damages over $1.4M greatly exceed $765K settlement credit