Petition For Rehearing No. 12-7747

No.
12-7747
Title:
Neil J . Gillespie, Petitioner
v.
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit of Florida, et al.
Docketed: December 14, 2012
Linked with 12A215
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-11028-B)
Decision Date: J uly 13, 2012
Rule 12.4
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to J ustice Thomas.
Sep 13 2012 Application (12A215) granted by J ustice Thomas extending the time to file until
December 10, 2012.
Dec 10 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis filed. (Response due J anuary 14, 2013)
Dec 20 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker,
Rodems & Cook, P.A. to respond filed.
J an 24 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Feb 13 2013 Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie filed. (Distributed)
Feb 19 2013 Petition DENIED.
Mar 18 2013 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Mar 27 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
Apr 15 2013 Rehearing DENIED.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Peti ti oner:
Neil J . Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807
Ocala, FL 34481
[email protected]
Party name: Neil J . Gillespie
Attorneys for Respondents:
Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (813)-489-1001
Docket for 12-7747 http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-77...
1 of 2 4/15/2013 12:23 PM
Counsel of Record 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790
Tampa, FL 33602
Party name: Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
Docket for 12-7747 http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-77...
2 of 2 4/15/2013 12:23 PM
Supreme Court of the United States
Office of the Clerk
Washington, DC 20543-0001
William K. Suter
Clerk of the Court
(202) 479-3011
April 15, 2013
Mr. Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Neil J. Gillespie
v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, et ale
No. 12-7747
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Sincerely,
t / ) ~ / ~
William K. Suter, Clerk
No: 12-7747
_______________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________
NEIL J . GILLESPIE - PETITIONER
vs.
THIRTEENTH J UDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS
________________________
RULE 44.2 PETITION FOR REHEARING OF AN ORDER DENYING
PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
____________________
Submitted March 18, 2013
by
Neil J . Gillespie, pro se
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Email: [email protected]
ii
LI ST OF PARTI ES
All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties
to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:
___________________
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11213
District Court no: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS
Civil rights and disability law.
Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.
Plaintiff: (1)
Neil J . Gillespie
Defendants: (10 +5 individually)
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
Claudia Rickert Isom, Circuit J udge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 200042)
J ames M. Barton, II, Circuit J udge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
Martha J . Cook, Circuit J udge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 242640)
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 861987)
Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, and individually
*Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
**Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 947652)
The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)
* ** NO PARTY INTEREST, see Petitioners Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court,
submitted J anuary 22, 2013 (Nominal parties)
___________________
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11028
District Court no: 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS
Civil rights and disability law, civil RICO, antitrust, commerce, estate claims.
Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.
Plaintiffs: (2)
Neil J . Gillespie
Estate of Penelope Gillespie (deceased)
Defendants: (4 +1 individually)
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Florida
J ames M. Barton, II, Circuit Court J udge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)
The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)
iii
J URI SDI CTI ON
This Court denied certiorari in Petition No. 12-7747 by order entered February 19, 2013.
Notice of the order from the Clerk follows this page.
Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari shall
be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial (Rule 44.2). That date fell on
Saturday March 16, 2013. Therefore in the computation of time, the 25 day period shall extend
until Monday March 18, 2013. (Rule 30.1).
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Rule 44.2 and 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
Supreme Court of the United States
Office of the Clerk
Washington, DC 20543-0001
William K. Suter
Clerk of the Court
(202) 479-3011
February 19, 2013
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Neil J. Gillespie
v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, et ale
No. 12-7747
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Sincerely,
U J ~ . ! ~
William K. Suter, Clerk
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF PARTIES ......................................................................................................................ii
J URISDICTION...........................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED............................................................................................vi
PETITION FOR REHEARING OF AN ORDER DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI .................................................................................1
Invitation of Neil J . Gillespie to the ABA to audit his Florida Bar complaints, disability
accommodation, and Legal Abuse Syndrome, to complement the ABAs first
comprehensive review of disciplinary enforcement rules in 20 years, with Myles V.
Lynk, Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline.
Opinion and letters of J ohn Bruce Thompson, J .D., expert on The Florida Bar discipline
process, ongoing dialog with Myles V. Lynk, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on
Professional Discipline
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................12
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH, RULE 44.2........................................................................end
I NDEX TO SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDI CES
SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX
Invitation of Neil J . Gillespie to the ABA to audit his Florida Bar complaints, disability
accommodation, and Legal Abuse Syndrome, to complement the ABAs first
comprehensive review of disciplinary enforcement rules in 20 years, with Myles V.
Lynk, Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline
Letters of J ohn Bruce Thompson, J .D., expert on The Florida Bar discipline process,
ongoing dialog with Myles V. Lynk, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Professional
Discipline
Composite, letter from Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft, emails re: Kim Pruett-Barry
In Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Letter to U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES CI TED
AUTHORITIES PAGE NUMBER
J ohn B. Thompson, J .D., 3, 12
Expert, Florida Bar Discipline System
U.S. Const. amend. V Due Process, Life, Liberty, Property 7
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Due Process, Life, Liberty, Property 7
Fla. Const. Article V Section 15
Attorneys; admission and discipline. --The supreme court generally
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission
of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons
admitted.
Deal v. Migoski, 122 So. 2d 415 11
Duty of attorney to client
Gerlach v. Donnelly, 98 So. 2d 493 11
Duty of attorney to client
The Florida Bar Hawkins Report, May 2012 3
Hawkins Commission on Review of Discipline System,
May 2012, Report and Recommendations, A Report
and Analysis of Targeted Aspects of the Attorney
Discipline System
The American Bar Association (ABA) McKay Report 1
Lawyer Regulation for A New Century: Report
of the Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary
Enforcement. February 1992
The American Bar Associations Mission: 1
To serve equally our members, our profession and the public by
defending liberty and delivering justice as the national
representative of the legal profession.
http://www.americanbar.org/utility/about_the_aba/aba-mission-goals.html
ABA Commission on Disability Rights (CDR) 7
The Commission advocates for the legal rights of persons with disabilities, seeking to
eliminate the obstacles created by stigma and prejudice based on stereotypes and to
ensure their equal participation and meaningful inclusion in society.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/disabilityrights/about_us.html
1
IN THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING OF AN ORDER DENYING A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Respectfully appearing pro se, petitioner Neil J . Gillespie, henceforth in the first person,
presents intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect and other substantial
grounds not previously presented.
Invitation to the American Bar Association (ABA)
A letter on behalf of ABA President Laurel Bellows appears at Appendix 1 as provided
February 19, 2013, the same day this Court denied the petition. The response by J eanne P. Gray
1
,
Director of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility concerned the program of discipline
system consultations or audits administered by the American Bar Association Standing
Committee on Professional Discipline. Ms. Gray wrote, Without a direct invitation from the
Florida Supreme Court, the Standing Committee is not able nor authorized to provide lawyer
discipline system consultation services.
In lieu of a direct invitation from the Florida Supreme Court for the ABA Standing
Committee to review its discipline system, I asked Ms. Bellows to please accept my invitation to
review the fifteen (15) complaints I submitted to The Florida Bar. Two other people I know also
want the ABA to review their matters involving The Florida Bar. The ABA should also consider
a letter from U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings to the FHFA requesting an investigation of
foreclosure mills, many of which are located in Florida. My letter appears in a separate volume
appendix designated Invitation to Laurel G. Bellows, President, American Bar Association.

1
Ms. Gray is also Associate Executive Director, ABA Public Services Group.
2
This review could complement the ABAs first comprehensive review of disciplinary
enforcement rules in 20 years, the one lead by Myles V. Lynk, Chair of the ABA Standing
Committee on Professional Discipline. The last such review was the Commission on Evaluation
of Disciplinary Enforcement (1989-1992) and the resulting 1992 McKay Commission Report.
Mr. Lynk says
2
the committee will rely heavily on input from individuals and groups
working in the ethics and discipline field. What about an opportunity to review a variety of
actual discipline matters that The Florida Bar has not, and cannot, fairly or honestly resolve
because its fatally flawed discipline system is catastrophically broken?
In addition, I asked Ms. Bellows to please accept my invitation to review, through the
ABA Commission on Disability Rights (CDR), my disability accommodation requests that were
denied or ignored by the courts.
Finally, the ABA should consider Legal Abuse Syndrome and its cost to the justice
system, in terms of depression, suicide and preventable death affecting the profession, the
accused, and consumers of legal services, from Internet activist Aaron Swartz to attorney Mark
P. Hummels. A copy of the book Legal Abuse Syndrome is provided.
My invitation is in keeping with the American Bar Associations Mission: To serve
equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as
the national representative of the legal profession.

2
ABA J ournal Law News Now, November 2, 2012, A New Look: ABA Plans First
Comprehensive Review of Disciplinary Enforcement Rules in 20 Years, by J ames Podgers.
3
ABA Model Rules Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession
According to the ABAs website, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct were
adopted by the State of Florida J uly 17, 1986. Rule 8.1 through Rule 8.5 are in the category
Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession.
Does the ABA have a duty to act when it is clear from the Florida Bars Hawkins Report
of May 2012, a.k.a. the Hawkins Commission on Review of the Discipline System, that the
lawyer discipline system in this state is fatally flawed, according to findings published in the
ABAs McKay Report, fatal defects such as local discipline components that foster cronyism
and prejudice toward unpopular respondents?
Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate
professional authority.
Below is a message by J ohn B. Thompson, J .D. to all members of the Florida legislature.
J ohn B. Thompson, J .D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
[email protected]
February 18, 2012
All Members of the Florida Legislature Via Emails to Each Senator and Representative
Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Florida Senators and Florida Representatives:
The lawyer discipline system in this state is catastrophically broken. Its very regulatory
structure is fatally flawed according to a landmark finding of the American Bar
Associations McKay Commission. The ABA offered the State of Florida an impartial
audit of its bar discipline system, and both the Florida Supreme Court and Bar refuse the
audit because they know how damning the Florida-specific audit would be.
4
The Bar itself has just conducted a survey of state judges who have filed bar complaints
against lawyers. I had to pry the results of this survey out of The Bar via a public records
request, as The Bar is hiding this survey from the public. No wonder; therein is
contained the most stunning statistical proof of governmental ineptitude I have ever seen:
Nearly three-fifths (58%) of judge respondents say they are dissatisfied with the
disciplinary job The Bar has done. A staggering 82% of all county, circuit, and appellate
judges in the most populous District (the Third DCA) are dissatisfied with the job The
Bar is doing! Yet The Bar has now officially decided not to fix the ABA-identified fatal
structural flaw in certain state bars that explains this catastrophic Florida Bar failure.
And this indictment of The Florida Bar is from judges who filed complaints. You would
think The Bar would at least do a good job in Bar complaint cases filed by judges. Can
you imagine what the general publics experience and level of dissatisfaction with Bar
discipline is? In Broward County, for instance, the level of judicial dissatisfaction is a
whopping 65%. This is the county in which Scott Rothstein embedded himself in The
Bars grievance system and funneled huge amounts of money to The Bar in order to buy
protection from it.
Did you know that The Bar founded and helps run a malpractice insurer that protects its
insured lawyers from discipline? The Bar has become, literally, a protection racket. J ust
ask Scott Rothstein and his Ponzi scheme victims.
I have spoken at length, face-to-face with one of you Senators from South Florida, who
agrees with me that any judicial branch budget coming out of this session must contain a
mandate that the Florida Supreme Court and Bar submit to the aforementioned ABA
audit of its broken lawyer discipline system. The Supreme Court is supposed to oversee
this mess, and it is not doing so. Even Chief J ustice Canady and J ustice Polston have
found, The Florida Supreme Court has abdicated its duty to supervise The Florida Bar.
You need to make the judiciarys receipt of our tax dollars contingent upon the Supreme
Courts getting its lawyer discipline system in order. There are dozens of Scott
Rothsteins out there.
Please contact me for more information on this scandalous emergency. I will meet with
any and all of you to explain how bad this is and what must be done.
We are tired of open season declared by The Florida Bar on Floridians. You must, before
this Session ends, tell the Supreme Court that its funding is tied to getting its corrupt
house in order.
Regards, J ack Thompson
Copy: Media
5
Letter of U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings to Federal Housing Finance Agency
Request for Investigation of Foreclosure Mills
U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings wrote February 25, 2011 to Inspector General
Steve A. Linick of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) asking that he initiate an
investigation into widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys and law firms hired to
process foreclosures as part of the "Retained Attorney Network" established by Fannie Mae.
Rep. Cummings six-page letter appears at Exhibit 3 to my invitation to the ABA.
The Congressman is a Ranking Member Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform. Unfortunately most of the law firms cited by Rep. Cummings are Florida law firms,
including:
The Law Offices of David J . Stern
The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P.
McCalla Raymer, L.L.C. (now with offices in Orlando)
Lender Processing Services, Inc. and LPS Default Solutions, L.L.C.
Rep. Cummings letter cites the Florida AGs investigation of foreclosure mills that was later
abandoned:
For example, on August 10, 2010, the Florida State Attorney General announced an
investigation into unfair and deceptive practices by the Law Offices of David J . Stern, P.
A., the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., and Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. The
allegations against the firms include creating and filing with Florida courts improper
documentation to speed foreclosures and establishing affiliated companies outside the
United States to prepare false documents. In announcing this investigation, the Attorney
General stated:
On numerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to
the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners.
Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may
have been the result of allegedly improper actions of the law firms under
investigation.
In the Shapiro case, The Florida Bar claims it cannot regulate law firms, according to an
affidavit of Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, cited by Attorney General
6
McCollum in State, Office of Atty Gen. v. Shapiro & Fishman, LLP, 59 So. 3d 353, 355 (Fla.
4th DCA 2011). The affidavit appears at Exhibit 4 to my invitation to the ABA.
In December 2012 the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. entered into a
conditional guilty plead for consent judgment with The Florida Bar, Exhibit 5, invitation to the
ABA. On information and belief, the firm simply changed its name to Choice Legal, headed by
Marshall Watsons brother, J ohn Watson, where they will likely get back to business as usual.
McCalla Raymer, LLC is another firm Rep. Cummings mentioned by name:
Another firm in the Retained Attorney Network, McCalla Raymer, L.L.C., is a
defendant in a federal lawsuit in which the plaintiffs allege that it engaged in fraud,
racketeering, and the manufacture of fraudulent foreclosure documents. Reportedly, this
firm established operations in Florida under the name Stone, McGehee & Silver and
hired ten former Stern law firm employees. The firm Stone, McGehee and Silver, LLC,
dba McCalla Raymer currently appears as a "Designated Counsel/Trustee" in Florida for
Freddie Mac.
Unfortunately McCalla Raymer, LLC is now doing business in Florida under its own
name in Orlando Florida. I have personal knowledge of this firms misconduct in my own
disputed foreclosure on a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM reverse mortgage.
In addition, The state of Florida is also plagued by the following:
Florida is notorious for the rocket docket, a court that is noted for its speedy disposition of
home mortgage foreclosure cases. Wikipedia reports Lee County Court, Florida (Fort Myers)
on some days hears up to 1,000 cases per day which equates to less than 30 seconds per case,
assuming an 8-hour day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_docket
Florida is notorious for "Robo-signing", a term to describe the robotic process of the mass
production of false and forged execution of mortgage assignments, satisfactions, affidavits,
and other legal documents related to mortgage foreclosures and legal matters being created
by persons without knowledge of the facts being attested to. It also includes accusations of
notary fraud wherein the notaries pre- and/or post-notarize the affidavits and signatures of
so-called robo-signers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robo-signing#Robo-signing_controversy
Florida has the highest mortgage fraud rate in the country. The Miami Herald series
Borrowers Betrayed showed that more than 10,000 people with criminal records were
permitted to work in Florida's mortgage industry during the housing boom between 2000 and
2007. Of those, 4,065 cleared background checks despite having committed crimes that state
7
law requires regulators to screen, including bank robbery, racketeering and extortion.
http://www.miamiherald.com/static/multimedia/news/mortgage/sink.html
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the
federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process
of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the
Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central
promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law
("legality") and provide fair procedures. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
A property right can be created only by state law. Once a property right is established, the
determination of what process is due before that right can be deprived is a question answered by
the federal Constitution. Kingsford v. Salt Lake City Sch. Dist., 247 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2001).
Disability Review by the ABA - Commission on Disability Rights
I invited the ABA Commission on Disability Rights (CDR) to review my disability
accommodation requests that were either denied or ignored by the courts. A message by CDR
Chair Katherine H. O'Neil November 4, 2011 states in part:
Dear Friends and Colleagues: We are proud to announce that the American Bar
Association Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law has changed its name to
the Commission on Disability Rights (CDR).
CDR is one of the oldest and storied entities within the Association...From 1973 up until
1991, the Commission on the Mentally Disabled responded to the advocacy needs of
persons with mental disabilities. Adapting to social and political change, the CDR
changed its name in 1991 to the Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law
after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It no longer focused exclusively
on individuals with mental health impairments, recognizing that the civil rights
movement, as it applied to those with disabilities, encompassed people with sensory and
physical impairments.
8
In the past Dr. Karin Huffer served as my ADA advocate. Dr. Huffer will cooperate with
the ABAs review of disability in my case. Dr. Huffer provided a letter October 28, 2010 about
the lack of accommodation in my case, see Exhibit 11 invitation to the ABA. Dr. Huffer wrote:
As the litigation has proceeded, Mr. Gillespie is routinely denied participatory and
testimonial access to the court. He is discriminated against in the most brutal ways
possible. He is ridiculed by the opposition, accused of malingering by the J udge and
now, with no accommodations approved or in place, Mr. Gillespie is threatened with
arrest if he does not succumb to a deposition. This is like threatening to arrest a
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. (p.1,2)
Unfortunately, there are cases that, due to the newness of the ADAAA, lack of training of
judicial personnel, and entrenched patterns of litigating without being mandated to
accommodate the disabled, that persons with disabilities become underserved and are too
often ignored or summarily dismissed. Power differential becomes an abusive and
oppressive issue between a person with disabilities and the opposition and/or court
personnel. The litigant with disabilities progressively cannot overcome the stigma and
bureaucratic barriers. Decisions are made by medically unqualified personnel causing
them to be reckless in the endangering of the health and well being of the client. This
creates a severe justice gap that prevents the ADAAA from being effectively applied. In
our adversarial system, the situation can devolve into a war of attrition. For an
unrepresented litigant with a disability to have a team of lawyers as adversaries, the
demand of litigation exceeds the unrepresented, disabled litigants ability to maintain
health while pursuing justice in our courts. Neil Gillespies case is one of those. At this
juncture the harm to Neil Gillespies health, economic situation, and general
diminishment of him in terms of his legal case cannot be overestimated and this bell
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds. (pp.1-2)
Legal Abuse Syndrome
Enclosed you will find accompanying this invitation the book Legal Abuse Syndrome.
On November 10, 2009 I wrote to Carolyn B. Lamm, who was then President of the American
Bar Association. My letter to Ms. Lamm began with this paragraph:
Enclosed for you is a copy of Legal Abuse Syndrome by Karin Huffer. The books
cover proclaims Warning: Protracted litigation can be hazardous to your health. Has
the ABA addressed this serious, debilitating aspect of litigation?
Unfortunately the ABA returned the book the next day, along with a letter from Beverly Curd,
9
Communications Coordinator, Office of the President, who wrote in part:
Addressing issues such as the one you describe is not generally within the purview of the
Association's work. The Association does not address specific complaints or cases
because it has no power to investigate or intervene in such matters.
However within several months, the online ABA J ournal Law News Now published a story,
Law Practice Can Trigger Stress Disorder, Says Attorney Who Now Works as Therapist by
Martha Neil, March 17, 2010. Ms. Neil wrote, in part:
For him personally, writes Will Meyerhofer, a former BigLaw associate who now works
as a psychotherapist, "it got to the point for me, at Sullivan & Cromwell, that I felt my
entire body clench in preparation for attack just walking through the doors of 125 Broad
Street and stepping into that elevator." His post, however, indicates that law practice, in
general, rather than any particular law firm, is the cause of such stress.
Such feelings of constant anxiety, he says in a People's Therapist post, can rise to the
level of a diagnosable case of post-traumatic stress disorder, which is characterized by a
state of hyper-vigilance to potential attack, a deadening of emotions and flashbacks or
nightmares concerning stressful situations.
http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/article/law_practice_can_trigger_stress_disorder_says_attor
ney_who_now_works_as_the
Florida attorney J eff Childers prepared an Economic Analysis Spreadsheet for this matter
September 17, 2009, and assigned a $100,000 cost to Legal Abuse Syndrome on page 4:
Non-Pecuniary Cost of Litigation. Plaintiff is likely suffering from physical and
emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome,
the book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the
non-pecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate
the physical and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both
short and long-term effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time
invested in the case but also by loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-
effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may
wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards. There is 100% probability these costs
will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
Mr. Childers also prepared an Analysis of Case and Recommendation. Exhibit 12 is a composite
of the 12 pages of documents for the Economic Analysis Spreadsheet and Analysis of Case and
Recommendation. Note this $100,000 estimate was made in 2009, and this case has continued for
several more years, adding to the non-pecuniary cost of this litigation.
10
Recent stories on the ABA J ournal Law News Now, and the Legal Times, show matters that may
involve Legal Abuse Syndrome. What is the ethical response of the profession?
Internet activists suicide spurs criticism of US Attorney, J anuary 14, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_hactivist_deserve_potential_decades-
long_sentence_his_suicide_spurs_cri/
3 dead, 2 wounded in Delaware courthouse shooting, February 11, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/3_dead_2_wounded_in_courthouse_shooting/
Georgia bar readies suicide prevention initiative as PD takes his life, February 28, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/georgia_bar_readies_suicide_prevention_initiative_
as_pd_takes_his_life/
Prosecutor gunned down while walking from parking lot to work at courthouse, J anuary 31,
2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/prosecutor_slain_while_walking_from_parking_lot
_to_work_at_courthouse_suspe/
Fatal shooting after mediation leaves lawyer and client dead, J anuary 31, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_shot_client_executive_killed_after_mediatio
n_session_with_suspected_/
US Attorney bullying? This time charge is lobbed by budget motel owner who fought to keep
property, J anuary 30, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/us_attorney_bullying_this_time_charge_is_lobbed_
by_budget_motel_owner_who_f/
Lawyer Produces Documentary Addressing Depression Among Lawyers, November 24,
2010
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_produces_documentary_addressing_depress
ion_among_lawyers
Congress Weighs in on DOJ 's Handling of Swartz Prosecution, J anuary 29, 2013 (Legal
Times) http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/congress-weighs-in-on-dojs-handling-of-
swartz-prosecution.html
Myth of the Attorney - Client Relationship
The old adage is, He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
The reality has become, He who is represented is usually taken for a fool.
As a consumer of legal services, I was owned a fiduciary duty by my lawyers:
11
It is long established that the relationship between an attorney and his client is one of the
most important, as well as the most sacred, known to the law. The responsibility of an
attorney to place his clients interest ahead of his own in dealings with matters upon
which the attorney is employed is at the foundation of our legal system. Deal v. Migoski
It is a fiduciary relationship involving the highest degree of truth and confidence, and an
attorney is under a duty, at all times, to represent his client and handle his clients affairs
with the utmost degree of honesty, forthrightness, loyalty, and fidelity. Gerlach v. Donnelly
On Saturday March 15, 2013 I received a letter from Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft
stating it appeared that Mr. Bauer did not provide me a copy of his response to my complaint.
Enclosed you will find Mr. Robert W. Bauer's response to your complaint. The response
sent by Mr. Bauer indicated that a copy was being mailed to you. However based on your
recent email to The Florida bar it appears that you did not receive you copy of Mr.
Bauer's response.
That was correct, and the single remarkable item provided was Exhibit A, a copy of an email
from Kim Pruett-Barry, a client of Mr. Bauer, who unfortunately has been contacting me for
several months to complaint about him. Ms. Pruett wrote:
Mr. Neil Gillespie is using my name WITHOUT my permission in a complaint against
Robert Bauer, Atty, with the Florida State Bar.
Please be advised that I am satisfied with Mr. Bauer's representation of our case and
in no way want to be associated with Mr. Gillespie and this complaint.
Attached as composite Appendix 6 are a number of emails Ms. Pruett sent me, that suggest she
was to satisfied with him.
Ms. Pruett telephoned me, unsolicited, October 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM, which was her
initial contact complaining about Mr. Bauer. Fortunately the call was recorded, and Ms. Pruetts
performance memorialized for the record.
Conclusion
The petition should be granted if the ABA can review this nlatter as to ethics, disability accommodation,
and Legal Abuse Syndrome. Mr. Thompson has presented a number of arguments to Myles V. Lynk, Chair,
ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline. Mr. Thompson's letters come to me by email on a
distribution list, and I believe most, if not all, are already known to The Florida Bar.
Appendix 3 Letter of Jack Thompson, JD, to Myles V. Lynk, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on
Professional Discipline, February 23, 2013
Professional Discipline, March 4, 2013
I apologize to the Court for this inadequate pleading. I am quite ill, and this is the best I
can do now. Please look past this deficient pleading, to the millions of consumers of legal and
court services affecting interstate conlmerce, well beyond the borders of the State of Florida.
I hope the ABA decides to accept my invitation described in my letter to Ms. Bellows.
12
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
I, NEIL J. GILLESPIE appearing pro se, CERTIFY in accordance with Rule 44.2 that
this petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari is limited to
intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds
not previously presented, and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay.
I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts, upon information and
belief, are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
Respectfully submitted March 18,2013.
No: 12-7747
IN THE
NEIL J. GILLESPIE - PETITIONER
VS.
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL. - RESPONDENTS
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Neil J Gillespie, do swear or declare that on this date, March 18, 2013, as required by
Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed PETITION FOR THE REHEARING OF AN
ORDER DENYING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above
proceeding or that party's counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by delivery
to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days. Separate Volume
Appendices are provided in PDF on CD due to Gillespie's indigence and disability.
The names and addresses of those served are as follows:
David A. Rowland, Court Counsel Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Of Florida Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.
Legal Department 2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 200E
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 603 Gainesville, Florida 32609
Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (352) 375-5960
Telephone: (813) 272-6843
*Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law Laurel G. Bellows, President
**Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. American Bar Association
501 E. Kennedy Blvd, suite 790 321 North Clark Street
Tampa, Florida 33602 Chicago, IL 60654-7598
Telephone: (813) 489-1001 Telephone: (312) 988-5000
* ** NO PARTY INTEREST, see Petitioner's Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court,
submitted January 22, 2013 (Nominal parties)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoin
Executed on March 18,2013.
No: 12-7747
_______________________
IN THE
____________________
vs.
________________________
PETITION FOR REHEARING AN ORDER DENYING
________________________
INVITATION TO
Laurel G. Bellows, President
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - 321 NORTH CLARK STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60654-7598
And the American Bar Association
Standing Committee on Professional Discipline
FOR REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL DISCIPLINE MATTERS AND THE FLORIDA BAR IN
KEEPING WITH THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATIONS MISSION:
representative of the legal profession
1
Laurel G. Bellows, President March 18, 2013
American Bar Association (ABA)
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-7598
Dear ABA President Bellows:
Thank you and J eanne P. Gray
1
, Director of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility for
the ABAs letter of February 19, 2013 on the program of discipline system consultations or
audits administered by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Professional
Discipline. The letter appears at Exhibit 1.
Ms. Gray wrote, Without a direct invitation from the Florida Supreme Court, the Standing
Committee is not able nor authorized to provide lawyer discipline system consultation services.
In lieu of a direct invitation from the Florida Supreme Court for the ABA Standing Committee to
review its discipline system, please accept my invitation to review the fifteen (15) complaints I
submitted to The Florida Bar. A list of my complaints appears at Exhibit 2. Two other people I
know also want the ABA to review their matters involving The Florida Bar. The ABA should
also consider a letter from U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings to the FHFA requesting an
investigation of foreclosure mills, many of which are located in Florida.
enforcement rules in 20 years, the one lead by Myles V. Lynk, who chairs the ABA Standing
Committee on Professional Discipline. The last such review was the Commission on Evaluation
of Disciplinary Enforcement (1989-1992) and the resulting 1992 McKay Commission Report.
Mr. Lynk says
2
the committee will rely heavily on input from individuals and groups working in
the ethics and discipline field. What about an opportunity to review a variety of actual discipline
matters that The Florida Bar has not, and cannot, fairly or honestly resolve because its fatally
flawed discipline system is catastrophically broken?
In addition, please accept my invitation to review, through the ABA Commission on Disability
Rights (CDR), my disability accommodation requests that were denied or ignored by the courts.
Finally, the ABA should consider Legal Abuse Syndrome and its cost to the justice system, in
terms of depression, suicide and preventable death affecting the profession, the accused, and
consumers of legal services, from Internet activist Aaron Swartz to attorney Mark P. Hummels.
My invitation is in keeping with the American Bar Associations Mission: To serve equally our
members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the
national representative of the legal profession.

1
Ms. Gray is also Associate Executive Director, ABA Public Services Group.
2
ABA J ournal Law News Now, November 2, 2012, A New Look: ABA Plans First
Comprehensive Review of Disciplinary Enforcement Rules in 20 Years, by J ames Podgers.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Invitation to ABA President Laurel G. Bellows.........................................................................1
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................2
Other Florida Bar Matters Affecting Interstate Commerce........................................................3
Letter of U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings to the FHFA.....................................3
Grand Theft by Florida Attorney Dennis Dale Correa - $909,810.77............................5
DeMichelle Deposition Reporters of California.............................................................7
Disability Accommodation Review............................................................................................9
Legal Abuse Syndrome..............................................................................................................11
ABA Model Rules Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession.............................................13
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................15
_______________________________
The American Bar Associations Mission:
representative of the legal profession.
http://www.americanbar.org/utility/about_the_aba/aba-mission-goals.html
_______________________________
ABA Commission on Disability Rights (CDR)
The Commission advocates for the legal rights of persons with disabilities, seeking to eliminate
the obstacles created by stigma and prejudice based on stereotypes and to ensure their equal
participation and meaningful inclusion in society.
_______________________________
3
Florida Bar Matter Affecting Interstate Commerce
Letter of U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings to Federal Housing Finance Agency
Request for Investigation of Foreclosure Mills
U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings wrote February 25, 2011 to Inspector General Steve A.
Linick of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) asking that he initiate an investigation into
widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys and law firms hired to process foreclosures
as part of the "Retained Attorney Network" established by Fannie Mae. Rep. Cummings six-
page letter appears at Exhibit 3.
The Congressman is a Ranking Member Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Unfortunately most of the law firms cited by Rep. Cummings are Florida law firms, including:
The Law Offices of David J . Stern
The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P.
McCalla Raymer, L.L.C. (now with offices in Orlando)
Lender Processing Services, Inc. and LPS Default Solutions, L.L.C.
Rep. Cummings letter cites the Florida AGs investigation of foreclosure mills that was later
abandoned:
For example, on August 10, 2010, the Florida State Attorney General announced an
investigation into unfair and deceptive practices by the Law Offices of David J . Stern, P.
A., the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., and Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. The
allegations against the firms include creating and filing with Florida courts improper
documentation to speed foreclosures and establishing affiliated companies outside the
United States to prepare false documents. In announcing this investigation, the Attorney
General stated:
On numerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to
the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners.
Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may
have been the result of allegedly improper actions of the law firms under
investigation.
In the Shapiro case, The Florida Bar claims it cannot regulate law firms, according to an affidavit
of Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, cited by Attorney General McCollum in
State, Office of Atty Gen. v. Shapiro & Fishman, LLP, 59 So. 3d 353, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
The affidavit appears at Exhibit 4.
In December 2012 the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. entered into a conditional guilty
plead for consent judgment with The Florida Bar, Exhibit 5. On information and belief, the firm
simply changed its name to Choice Legal, headed by Marshall Watsons brother, J ohn Watson,
where they will likely get back to business as usual.
4
McCalla Raymer, LLC is another firm Rep. Cummings mentioned by name:
Freddie Mac.
Unfortunately McCalla Raymer, LLC is now doing business in Florida under its own name in
Orlando Florida. I have personal knowledge of this firms misconduct in my own disputed
foreclosure on a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM reverse mortgage.
In addition, The state of Florida is also plagued by the following:
Florida is notorious for the rocket docket, a court that is noted for its speedy disposition of
home mortgage foreclosure cases. Wikipedia reports Lee County Court, Florida (Fort Myers)
on some days hears up to 1,000 cases per day which equates to less than 30 seconds per case,
assuming an 8-hour day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_docket
Florida is notorious for "Robo-signing", a term to describe the robotic process of the mass
production of false and forged execution of mortgage assignments, satisfactions, affidavits,
and other legal documents related to mortgage foreclosures and legal matters being created
by persons without knowledge of the facts being attested to. It also includes accusations of
notary fraud wherein the notaries pre- and/or post-notarize the affidavits and signatures of
so-called robo-signers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robo-signing#Robo-signing_controversy
Florida has the highest mortgage fraud rate in the country. The Miami Herald series
Borrowers Betrayed showed that more than 10,000 people with criminal records were
permitted to work in Florida's mortgage industry during the housing boom between 2000 and
2007. Of those, 4,065 cleared background checks despite having committed crimes that state
law requires regulators to screen, including bank robbery, racketeering and extortion.
http://www.miamiherald.com/static/multimedia/news/mortgage/sink.html
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal
government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due
Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central
5
Grand Theft by Florida Attorney Dennis Dale Correa - $909,810.77
$391,000 Stolen from the Trembley Trust
Charles H. Dent, J r. and family have spent twenty (20) years trying to recover $391,000 stolen
by Florida attorney Dennis Dale Correa from the Trembley Trust. Mr. Correa admitted to the
theft, and four others, totaling $909,810.77, but was allowed to resign in lieu of discipline, with
leave to reapply in 5 years. Mr. Correa got probation from the court, no jail time, and was
ordered to make restitution, but Correa has only repaid a small amount.
This matter was profiled in the St. Petersburg Times (now called the Tampa Bay Times) on
September 11, 1994 as part of its Final Indignities series by J effrey Good, a Pulitzer Prize
winning journalist. The Times story appears at Exhibit 6. This matter is also profiled on my
website, which activity is part of my therapy as a survivor of legal injustice. This is the URL to
the specific page http://www.nosue.org/dennis-dale-correa/
The Felony Information in State v. Dennis D. Correa filed November 8, 1993 charged the
following offenses, by case number and count, by R.M. Lewis, Assistant State Attorney for the
Sixth J udicial Circuit for the State of Florida: (Exhibit 7)
CRC 93-07005-CFANO, Count 1, Grand Theft, First Degree Felony, from the Myrtle
D. Trembley Trust, theft value $100,000 or more.
CRC 93-07006-CFANO, Count 2, Grand Theft, First Degree Felony, from the
Denton and Elizabeth Turner Trust, theft value $100,000 or more.
CRC 93-07007-CFANO, Count 3, Grand Theft, First Degree Felony, from the Isaac
H. Whittaker Trust and the Isabelle Newman Trust and the Furman Thompkins Trust,
theft value $100,000 or more.
CRC 93-07008-CFANO, Count 4, Grand Theft, Second Degree Felony, from the
Estate of Mildred Bauer, theft value $20,000 or more.
CRC 93-07009-CFANO, Count 5, Grand Theft, Second Degree Felony, from the
Gladys Hoffman Trust, theft value $20,000 or more.
The Trembley Trust folks live in Pennsylvania, and it appears they were not informed about the
Florida Bars Client Security Fund. Now the time has expired to make a claim, according to Lori
Holcombof the Florida Bar. Although there were five different victims, Florida Bar records only
show payment to four, according to J enny J olinski, records management: (December 15, 2011)
Claimant records related to the Client Security Fund are confidential pursuant to Rule 7-
5.1 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar....However, according to the Client Security
Fund Department, the bar can disclose that the 4 cases referred to above closed on the
following dates 5/17/96, 9/8/95, 9/8/95 and 8/9/96. Three claimants received $50,000 and
one received $39,750.31, based on the rules in place at the time.
I spoke with Mr. Dent last month, and he forwarded this email response from Florida Attorney
General Pam Bondis office, which appears at Exhibit 8 and states:
6
Hello Mr. Dent,
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi received your inquiry asking for help in recovering
restitution from attorney Dennis Correa. Attorney General Bondi asked that I respond.
We appreciate that you have considered our office as a source of assistance, and I am
truly sorry for your family's financial losses and difficulties. I reviewed your
correspondence for any jurisdiction by our office. Our office is not at liberty to give legal
opinions or advice to private individuals; however, I hope the following information
proves helpful.
In regard to the criminal case and outcome, including court-ordered restitution, the
appropriate authority to address would be the State Attorney's Office that handled the
criminal case. In Florida, the elected state attorneys in each of the twenty judicial circuits
operate independently and are not a part of the Attorney General's Office. Please follow
up with the Sixth J udicial Circuit State Attorney's Office for any assistance or
information available:
State Attorney's Office
Sixth J udicial Circuit
Post Office Box 5028
Clearwater, Florida 33758
Telephone: (727) 464-6221
Fax number: (727) 464-8105
Website: http://www.sao6.org/
You may also wish to contact the court to ensure the judiciary is aware of your ongoing
concerns about any noncompliance with court-ordered restitution. As a part of the
executive branch, the Attorney General's Office does not have legal authorities over the
decisions of a judge.
Since Mr. Correa was a lawyer, you should also communicate with The Florida Bar in
regard to any questions or concerns about the Clients' Security Fund.....
Michael Wise, Office of Citizen Services
The executor of Ms. Tremblys estate, Harold Dent, expended considerable effort and expense
trying to recover money Mr. Correa stole, but was unable to accomplish much before he died.
Now his nephew, Charles H. Dent, J r., has asked my assistance as an advocate. I believe the
family has unsuccessfully pursued the actions suggested by
Charles Dent drives a truck for Walmart. He could use the inheritance to buy coal to heat his
home in Mifflinville, Pennsylvania that he shares with his wife. Mr. Dent would like the ABA to
review his case as part of its comprehensive review of disciplinary enforcement rules.
7
DeMichelle Deposition Reporters of California
Susan DeMichelle got burned on a bill by Tampa lawyer Michael Laurato in connection with his
practice of law. Susan DeMichelle is a California Certified Shorthand Reporter, and the owner
for 38 years of DeMichelle Deposition Reporters, a Fairfield California company. In 2007 Mr.
Laurato hired DeMichelle Deposition Reporters to make a transcript but later refused to pay a
$481 invoice. After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter Ms. DeMichelle obtained a
judgment against Mr. Laurato in a California court. In 2008 Ms. DeMichelle sought to enforce
the judgment in Hillsborough County, Florida, small claims court, Case No. 09-CC-006533.
Mr. Laurato commenced a declaratory judgment action against Ms. DeMichelle August 13,
2009. The case went to bench trial October 25, 2010 before the Hon. Eric Myers, who ruled in
favor of Ms. DeMichelle. Tampa attorney Ardyn Cuchel represented Mr. Laurato and his firm
Austin & Laurato, P.A. Ms. Cuchel is a friend and colleague of Mr. Laurato.
To defend the declaratory judgment action before J udge Myers, Ms. DeMichelle hired attorney
Brian Stayton on an hourly basis. Ms. DeMichelle traveled 3,000 miles to attend the hearing, and
her expenses exceed $10,000. Mr. Laurato appealed J udge Myers ruling, appellate case no. 10-
CA-024210, Hillsborough Circuit Civil Court. Ms. Cuchel again represented Mr. Laurato and his
firm. The appeal was decided in favor of Ms. DeMichelle November 7, 2011. Unfortunately she
never collected payment.
Susan DeMichelle made a complaint to the Florida Bar about this matter, TFB No. 2011-11,020
(13D). The Letter Report of No Probable Cause shows the grievance committee excused
dishonesty of Respondent Michael Laurato in his response to the Bar: "While Respondent's
statement appears to be clearly false, in order to prosecute Respondent, The Florida Bar would
need to prove that Respondent intentionally made a false statement.
In retaliation, Miami Beach attorney Howard Levine commenced a vexatious defamation lawsuit
against Ms. DeMichelle in Miami-Dade County, Florida over her blog about this matter. Howard
Levine is also friend and colleague of Mr. Laurato. Vexatious litigation by certain lawyers is a
problem in Florida. Kenneth L. Marvin, Director, Lawyer Regulation, responded to my letter
about vexatious lawyer lawsuits, which appears at Exhibit 9. Mr. Marvin wrote in part,
The Bar has no authority to prohibit anyone, including lawyers, from filing a law
suit...If the lawsuit has merit then the plaintiff will prevail, if not then the defendant will
prevail...If the lawyer files a lawsuit against someone who has filed a complaint against
that lawyer, the complainant has the immunity provided for in Tobkin v. J arboe, 710 So.
2d 975 (Fla. 1998). If the J udge hearing the case makes a finding that the lawyer filed a
frivolous pleading, then that lawyer would have violated the below rule. In the case of
The Florida Bar v. Kelly, 813 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2002), Mr. Kelly was suspended for 91
days for filing a frivolous lawsuit against his former client who had filed a grievance
against him.
8
The response by Mr. Marvin is incredulous. Anyone familiar with litigation knows a vexatious
lawsuit can be very costly in terms of money and mental abuse. And courts rarely hold attorneys
accountable. That is the job of the Florida Bar, and Mr. Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation.
Ms. DeMichelle defended the libel suit pro se. The case was dismissed FWOP December 17,
2012, whereupon Mr. Lauarto through counsel Howard Levine filed a temporary restraining
order, to which Ms. DeMichelle filed a response.
Mr. Laurato was profiled in a story by Colleen J enkins published October 3, 2010 in the Tampa
Bay Times, Brash Tampa lawyer attracts attention, good and bad. The story appears online at
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/brash-tampa-lawyer-attracts-attention-both-good-and-
bad/1125394 and at Exhibit 10. It appears from the 171 comments to the online Times story that
Mr. Laurato has brought discredit to the practice of law.
On February 13, 2011 Mr. Laurato was arrested for disorderly conduct by the Seminole Tribe
Police at the Seminole Hard Rock Casino near Tampa. Ms. Cuchel successfully defended Mr.
Laurato in the criminal misdemeanor case, no. 11-CM-003078. Hillsborough County, Florida.
Court records show that Mr. Laurato was asked to leave the Green Room Restaurant, refused,
engaged in profane language, and was arrested. In her defense, Ms. Cuchel successfully argued
that Mr. Lauratos profane language was protected by the First Amendment and Florida law.
In another matter, the Florida Supreme Court issued a public reprimand and taxed costs of
$4,002.44 against Mr. Laurato in bar complaint 2007-11,274(13D). Mr. Laurato was found
guilty of giving false testimony in a civil lawsuit with the Naffco company in Tampa, a violation
of Bar Rules 4-8.4(c), Florida Supreme Court case number SC09-1953.
Ms. DeMichelle has suffered greatly from this matter with Mr. Laurato. She lost focus on her
business, became depressed, and now works at a supermarket. She lost her home in foreclosure.
Ms. DeMichelle would like the ABA to review her case as part of its comprehensive review of
disciplinary enforcement rules.
9
Disability Review by the ABA - Commission on Disability Rights
I invite the ABA Commission on Disability Rights (CDR) to review my disability
accommodation requests that were either denied or ignored by the courts. A message by CDR
Chair Katherine H. O'Neil November 4, 2011 states in part:
Dear Friends and Colleagues: We are proud to announce that the American Bar
Association Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law has changed its name to
the Commission on Disability Rights (CDR).
CDR is one of the oldest and storied entities within the Association...From 1973 up until
1991, the Commission on the Mentally Disabled responded to the advocacy needs of
persons with mental disabilities. Adapting to social and political change, the CDR
changed its name in 1991 to the Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law
after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It no longer focused exclusively
on individuals with mental health impairments, recognizing that the civil rights
movement, as it applied to those with disabilities, encompassed people with sensory and
physical impairments.
In the past Dr. Karin Huffer served as my ADA advocate. Dr. Huffer will cooperate with the
ABAs review of disability in my case. Dr. Huffer provided a letter October 28, 2010 about the
lack of accommodation in my case, see Exhibit 11. Dr. Huffer wrote in part:
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. (p.1,2)
10
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds. (pp.1-2)
On May 27, 2011 I made public Dr. Huffers report of my disability in state court, see Verified
Notice of Filing Disability Information of Neil J . Gillespie in 05-CA-7205. Dr. Huffers report is
found at Exhibit 1 to that document. The document is cross-filed in the U.S. District Court on
PACER, see Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 36 Filed 07/07/11.
On August 6, 2012 with leave of the U.S. Court of Appeals, I submitted Amended Motion for
Disability Accommodation. This shows disqualification of Mr. Rodems was required under the
ADA. The Motion and Appendixes 1-3 are posted on Scribd, 251 pages,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/l02585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-l1.
I am an indigent fifty-six (56) year-old single man, law-abiding, college educated, and a former
business owner, disabled with physical and mental impairments that substantially limit my life
activities. The Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DRV) determined that my
disability was too severe for rehabilitation services to result in employment. In March 2001 I
consulted with Mr. Rodems firm on disability and DVR in DLES case no: 98-066-DVR.
Social Security determined I was totally disabled in 1994. I have a record of impairment since
birth. I am also regarded by others as being impaired. The record shows I suffer from depression,
post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), diabetes type II adult onset, traumatic brain injury (TBI),
velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI), craniofacial disorder, and impaired hearing.
Mr. Rodems' strategy has been, since 2006, to inflict severe emotional distress on me who he
knows to be especially vulnerable, through an abuse of power in a position of dominance, in an
effort to deny me due process of law, while simultaneously engaged in misconduct, conflict of
interest, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation on the court, and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice.
Mr. Rodems unprofessional conduct is apparent in his letter to me dated December 13, 2006,
available on request. For example:
I recognize that you are a bitter man who apparently has been victimized by your own
poor choices in life. You also claim to have mental or psychological problems, of which I
have never seen documentation. However, your behavior in this case has been so
abnormal that I would not disagree with your assertions of mental problems. (P1, 3)
So, in addition to your case's lack of merit, you are cheap and not willing to pay the
required hourly rates for representation. (P3, 2).
Mr. Rodems written statements are in conflict with the Commission on Disability Rights.
11
Legal Abuse Syndrome
Enclosed you will find accompanying this invitation the book Legal Abuse Syndrome.
On November 10, 2009 I wrote to Carolyn B. Lamm, who was then President of the American
Bar Association. My letter to Ms. Lamm began with this paragraph:
Enclosed for you is a copy of Legal Abuse Syndrome by Karin Huffer. The books
cover proclaims Warning: Protracted litigation can be hazardous to your health. Has
the ABA addressed this serious, debilitating aspect of litigation?
Unfortunately the ABA returned the book the next day, along with a letter from Beverly Curd,
Communications Coordinator, Office of the President, who wrote in part:
Addressing issues such as the one you describe is not generally within the purview of the
Association's work. The Association does not address specific complaints or cases
because it has no power to investigate or intervene in such matters.
However within several months, the online ABA J ournal Law News Now published a story,
Law Practice Can Trigger Stress Disorder, Says Attorney Who Now Works as Therapist by
Martha Neil, March 17, 2010. Ms. Neil wrote, in part:
For him personally, writes Will Meyerhofer, a former BigLaw associate who now works
as a psychotherapist, "it got to the point for me, at Sullivan & Cromwell, that I felt my
entire body clench in preparation for attack just walking through the doors of 125 Broad
Street and stepping into that elevator." His post, however, indicates that law practice, in
general, rather than any particular law firm, is the cause of such stress.
Such feelings of constant anxiety, he says in a People's Therapist post, can rise to the
level of a diagnosable case of post-traumatic stress disorder, which is characterized by a
state of hyper-vigilance to potential attack, a deadening of emotions and flashbacks or
nightmares concerning stressful situations.
http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/article/law_practice_can_trigger_stress_disorder_says_attor
ney_who_now_works_as_the
Florida attorney J eff Childers prepared an Economic Analysis Spreadsheet for this matter
September 17, 2009, and assigned a $100,000 cost to Legal Abuse Syndrome on page 4:
emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome,
the book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the
non-pecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate
the physical and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both
short and long-term effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time
invested in the case but also by loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-
12
effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may
wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards. There is 100% probability these costs
will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
Mr. Childers also prepared an Analysis of Case and Recommendation. Exhibit 12 is a composite
of the 12 pages of documents for the Economic Analysis Spreadsheet and Analysis of Case and
Recommendation. Note this $100,000 estimate was made in 2009, and this case has continued for
several more years, adding to the non-pecuniary cost of this litigation.
Recent stories on the ABA J ournal Law News Now, and the Legal Times, show matters that may
involve Legal Abuse Syndrome. What is your opinion, Ms. Bellows?
Internet activists suicide spurs criticism of US Attorney, J anuary 14, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_hactivist_deserve_potential_decades-
long_sentence_his_suicide_spurs_cri/
3 dead, 2 wounded in Delaware courthouse shooting, February 11, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/3_dead_2_wounded_in_courthouse_shooting/
Georgia bar readies suicide prevention initiative as PD takes his life, February 28, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/georgia_bar_readies_suicide_prevention_initiative_
as_pd_takes_his_life/
Prosecutor gunned down while walking from parking lot to work at courthouse, J anuary 31,
2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/prosecutor_slain_while_walking_from_parking_lot
_to_work_at_courthouse_suspe/
Fatal shooting after mediation leaves lawyer and client dead, J anuary 31, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_shot_client_executive_killed_after_mediatio
n_session_with_suspected_/
US Attorney bullying? This time charge is lobbed by budget motel owner who fought to keep
property, J anuary 30, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/us_attorney_bullying_this_time_charge_is_lobbed_
by_budget_motel_owner_who_f/
Lawyer Produces Documentary Addressing Depression Among Lawyers, November 24,
2010
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_produces_documentary_addressing_depress
ion_among_lawyers
Congress Weighs in on DOJ 's Handling of Swartz Prosecution, J anuary 29, 2013 (Legal
Times) http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/congress-weighs-in-on-dojs-handling-of-
swartz-prosecution.html
13
ABA Model Rules Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession
According to the ABAs website, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted
by the State of Florida J uly 17, 1986. Rule 8.1 through Rule 8.5 are in the category Maintaining
the Integrity of the Profession.
Does the ABA have a duty to act when it is clear from the Florida Bars Hawkins Report of May
2012, a.k.a. the Hawkins Commission on Review of the Discipline System, that the lawyer
discipline system in this state is fatally flawed, according to findings published in the ABAs
McKay Report, fatal defects such as local discipline components that foster cronyism and
prejudice toward unpopular respondents? Is that in itself evidence of professional misconduct?
Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate
professional authority.
Ms. Bellows, what duty, if any, do you have as a member in good standing of The Florida Bar
yourself, to accept this invitation, pursuant to ABA Model Rule 8.3, or any other Rule? Below is
a message by J ohn B. Thompson, J .D. to all members of the Florida legislature.
________________________________________________________________
5721 Riviera Drive
305-666-4366
[email protected]
February 18, 2012
The lawyer discipline system in this state is catastrophically broken. Its very regulatory structure
is fatally flawed according to a landmark finding of the American Bar Associations McKay
Commission. The ABA offered the State of Florida an impartial audit of its bar discipline
system, and both the Florida Supreme Court and Bar refuse the audit because they know how
damning the Florida-specific audit would be.
14
The Bar itself has just conducted a survey of state judges who have filed bar complaints against
lawyers. I had to pry the results of this survey out of The Bar via a public records request, as
The Bar is hiding this survey from the public. No wonder; therein is contained the most stunning
statistical proof of governmental ineptitude I have ever seen:
Nearly three-fifths (58%) of judge respondents say they are dissatisfied with the disciplinary
job The Bar has done. A staggering 82% of all county, circuit, and appellate judges in the most
populous District (the Third DCA) are dissatisfied with the job The Bar is doing! Yet The Bar
has now officially decided not to fix the ABA-identified fatal structural flaw in certain state bars
that explains this catastrophic Florida Bar failure.
And this indictment of The Florida Bar is from judges who filed complaints. You would think
The Bar would at least do a good job in Bar complaint cases filed by judges. Can you imagine
what the general publics experience and level of dissatisfaction with Bar discipline is? In
Broward County, for instance, the level of judicial dissatisfaction is a whopping 65%. This is
the county in which Scott Rothstein embedded himself in The Bars grievance system and
funneled huge amounts of money to The Bar in order to buy protection from it.
Did you know that The Bar founded and helps run a malpractice insurer that protects its insured
lawyers from discipline? The Bar has become, literally, a protection racket. J ust ask Scott
Rothstein and his Ponzi scheme victims.
I have spoken at length, face-to-face with one of you Senators from South Florida, who agrees
with me that any judicial branch budget coming out of this session must contain a mandate that
the Florida Supreme Court and Bar submit to the aforementioned ABA audit of its broken lawyer
discipline system. The Supreme Court is supposed to oversee this mess, and it is not doing so.
Even Chief J ustice Canady and J ustice Polston have found, The Florida Supreme Court has
abdicated its duty to supervise The Florida Bar.
You need to make the judiciarys receipt of our tax dollars contingent upon the Supreme Courts
getting its lawyer discipline system in order. There are dozens of Scott Rothsteins out there.
Please contact me for more information on this scandalous emergency. I will meet with any and
all of you to explain how bad this is and what must be done.
We are tired of open season declared by The Florida Bar on Floridians. You must, before this
Session ends, tell the Supreme Court that its funding is tied to getting its corrupt house in order.
Copy: Media
15
Conclusion
Thank you Ms. Bellows for considering my invitation to review the fifteen (15) complaints I
submitted to The Florida Bar.
My invitation is in keeping with the American Bar Associations Mission: To serve equally our
members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the
national representative of the legal profession.
Please accept my invitation to review, through the ABA Commission on Disability Rights
(CDR), my disability accommodation requests that were denied or ignored by the courts.
My invitation is in keeping with the CDRs goals: The Commission advocates for the legal rights
of persons with disabilities, seeking to eliminate the obstacles created by stigma and prejudice
based on stereotypes and to ensure their equal participation and meaningful inclusion in society.
enforcement rules in 20 years, the one lead by Myles V. Lynk, who chairs the ABA Standing
Committee on Professional Discipline.
I am submitting this invitation to the Supreme Court of the United States, in a petition for the
rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari, Petition No. 12-7747.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Appendix of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 ABA letter February 19, 2013, J eanne P. Gray to Neil Gillespie
Exhibit 2 List of complaints to The Florida Bar by Neil Gillespie
Exhibit 3 Letter of U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings to the FHFA
Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Kenneth L. Marvin, October 7, 2010
Exhibit 5 Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent J udgment, Marshall C. Watson
Exhibit 6 Final Indignities, by J effrey Good, St. Petersburg Times, Re: Dennis Dale Correa
Exhibit 7 Felony Information, Dennis Dale Correa, November 8, 1993
Exhibit 8 Email and response by Florida AG Pam Bondi to Charles H. Dent
Exhibit 9 Letter of Kenneth L. Marvin, the Florida Bar, Re: Vexatious Lawyer Lawsuits
Exhibit 10 Brash Tampa lawyer attracts attention, both good and bad, Tampa Bay Times
Exhibit 11 Letter of Dr. Karin Huffer, ADA advocate for Neil Gillespie, October 28, 2010.

Center for Professional Responsibility
321 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 988-5325
Fax: (312) 988-5491
Website: www.americanbar.org/

Associ ate Executi ve Director
ABA Publi c Services Group
Director, CPR
J eanne P. Gray

ETHICS Unit

Lead Senior Counsel
Dennis Rendleman

Associate Counsel
Eileen B. Libby

Senior Counsel ETHICSearch Director
Peter H. Geraghty

ETHICSearch Associate Counsel
Susan Michmerhuizen

Lawyers Manual

Lead Senior Counsel and
Managing Editor
Ellen J . Bennett

Associate Counsel and Attorney Editor
Elizabeth J . Cohen

Attorney Editor
Helen Gunnarsson

Marketing and Pl anning Unit

Director
Angela L. Burke

Sr. Membership & Marketing Specialist
Benjamin Woodson

Program Specialist
Krista D. Herman

Policy and Program Unit

Director
Marcia Kladder

Senior Research Paralegal
Natalia Vera

Paralegal
Kimley Grant

Committee Specialist
Annie Kuhlman

Policy Implementation and
Client Protection

Lead Senior Counsel, Policy
Implementation and Client Protection
J ohn A. Holtaway

Client Protection Counsel
Selina Thomas

Professionalism and Speci alization

Deputy Director, CPR
Professionalism Counsel
Arthur H. Garwin

Senior Counsel
Paul A. Haskins

Senior Counsel Specialization
Martin Whittaker

Regulation

Lead Senior Counsel,
Regulation and Ethics 20/20
Ellyn S. Rosen

Deputy Regulation Counsel
Theresa Gronkiewicz

Associate Counsel,
National Lawyer Regulatory Data Bank
Vita Levar

February 19, 2013

Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Your letter of February 18, 2013 addressed to ABA President Laurel G. Bellows was referred
to me for response. Your inquiry relates to the program of discipline system consultations
administered by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Professional
Discipline, which is designed to assist the judiciary in developing and strengthening
professional disciplinary enforcement. The Standing Committee has developed lawyer
discipline consultation criteria adapted from the ABA Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary
Enforcement and from the 1992 McKay Commission Report, which was referenced in your
letter.
The principal component of this process is that it must be initiated by invitation of a
jurisdictions highest court requesting the ABA Standing Committee on Professional
Discipline to conduct an on-site review of the entire lawyer discipline system by a team of
national experts. The team conducts extensive interviews with disciplinary staff, discipline
system adjudicators, bar officials, complainants, respondents, respondents counsel, members
of the judiciary and others who have had contact with or a role in the states discipline system,
and reviews court rules, reports and statistics. Thereafter, the Standing Committee provides
its report and recommendations to the jurisdictions highest court on a confidential basis. The
report is designed to assist the court to improve its system by providing constructive
recommendations based upon the teams investigation, its collective knowledge and
experience, and consideration of the consultation criteria.
Without a direct invitation from the Florida Supreme Court, the Standing Committee is not
able nor authorized to provide lawyer discipline system consultation services. Since the
program is designed to assist the judicial branch of government in the execution of its
regulatory function, the jurisdictions highest court must affirmatively extend the invitation to
the American Bar Association.

Thank you for your interest in our consultation program.
I hope this letter is responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

J eanne P. Gray
Associate Executive Director, ABA Public Services Group
Director, ABA Center for Professional Responsibility
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

1
Florida Bar ethics complaints substantially related to Ryan Christopher Rodems*
*Partners engaged in the practice of law are each responsible for the fraud or negligence of another
partner when the later acts within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney. Smyrna
Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So.2d 16 (2dDCA, 1965).
1. William J . Cook RFA No. 03-18867 J une 12, 2003 (ACAP Central)
2. William J . Cook TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C) J une 7, 2004 (Tampa Branch)
3. William J . Cook TFB No. 2006-11,194 (13D) March 6, 2006 (Tampa Branch)
4. William J . Cook TFB No. 2007-10,004 (13D) J une 27, 2006 (Tampa Branch)
5. Ryan Christopher Rodems TFB No. 2007-11,162(13D) February 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)
6. Chris A. Barker TFB No. 2007-11,792(13A) J une 18, 2007 (Tampa Branch)
7. Ryan Christopher Rodems File not opened/no number J une 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)
8. Troy Matthew Lovell File not opened/no number J une 20, 2007 (Tampa Branch)
9. Robert W. Bauer TFB No. 2011-00,073 (8B) J uly 15, 2010 (ACAP Central)
10. Seldon J . Childers RFA No. 11-4718 August 25, 2010 (ACAP Central)
11. Eugene P. Castagliuolo TFB No. 2013-10,162 (6D) August 17, 2012 (ACAP Central)
12. Ryan Christopher Rodems TFB No. 2013-10,271 (13E) Sep-13, 2012 (ACAP Central)
13. Robert W. Bauer RFA No. 13-7675 October 31, 2012 (ACAP Central); denied Nov-09-12;
submitted in SCOTUS Petition no. 12-7747. Reconsidered J an-07-13, No. 2013-00,540 (8B).
14. Ryan Christopher Rodems, complaint submitted J anuary 4, 2013. Current status unknown.
15. Catherine Barbara Chapman, complaint submitted J anuary 18, 2013. Current status unknown.
McPartland v. ISI Inv. Services, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 1029, M.D.Fla., 1995 has been a mandatory
authority on disqualification in Tampa since entered J une 30, 1995 by J udge Kovachevich:
[1] Under Florida law, attorneys must avoid appearance of professional impropriety, and any doubt
is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. [2] To prevail on motion to disqualify counsel, movant
must show existence of prior attorney-client relationship and that the matters in pending suit are
substantially related to the previous matter or cause of action. [3] In determining whether attorney-
client relationship existed, for purposes of disqualification of counsel from later representing
opposing party, a long-term or complicated relationship is not required, and court must focus on
subjective expectation of client that he is seeking legal advice. [5] For matters in prior representation
to be substantially related to present representation for purposes of motion to disqualify counsel,
matters need only be akin to present action in way reasonable persons would understand as
important to the issues involved. [7] Substantial relationship between instant case in which law firm
represented defendant and issues in which firm had previously represented plaintiffs created
irrebuttable presumption under Florida law that confidential information was disclosed to firm,
requiring disqualification. [8] Disqualification of even one attorney from law firm on basis of prior
representation of opposing party necessitates disqualification of firm as a whole, under Florida law.
2
DARRn.L r: ISSA, CALIFORNIA
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS U.IJAH E CUMMINGS, MARYLAND
CHAIHMAN RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
DAN BURTON, INDIANA EDOLPHUS TOWNS, NFW YORK
JOHN L MICA, FLORIDA CAROLYN B. MALONEY, NEW YORK
(!Congress of tbe Wntteb
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, PFNNSYI VANI!\ H CANOR HOLMES NORTON,
M ICHACL R TURNER, OHIO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PA TRICK McHENRY, NORTH CAFWLlNA DENNIS J KUCINICH, OHIO
JIM JORDAN, OHIO JOHN F. TIERNEY, MASSACHUSETTS 1l,oltgr of l\rpregentatiueg
JASON CHAFFETZ, UTAH WM LACY CLAY, MISSOURI
CONNIE MACK, FLORIDA STEPHEN F. LYNCH. MASSACHUSETTS
TIM WALBERG, MICHIGAN
COMMITIEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JIM COOPER. ll:NNESSEE
JAMES LANKFORD, OKLAHOMA GERALD E. CONNOLLY, VIRGINIA
JUSTIN AMASH, MICHIGAN MIKE QUIGLEY, ILLINOIS
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, NEW YORK 2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
DANNY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS
PAUL A GOSAR, D D.S., ARIZONA BRUCE L. BRALEY, IOWA
RAUL R. LABFlADOR. IDAHO PEHR WELCH, VERMONT
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143
PATRICK MEEHAN, PENNSYl VANIA JOHN A. YARMUTH, KENTUCKY
sc:on Drs,JARLAIS, M.D , fFNNESSH CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, CONNECTICUT
(;'O?):'2b ',0/4
,fOE WALSH, ILLINOIS JACKIE SPEIEH, CALIFORNIA
f ,\( 'dMII I l,'O?) ??'i 397.1
TRFY GOWDY, SOUTH CAROliNA
MIN' )HI; ( 1?02, 1
DENNIS A. ROSS, FLORIDA
FRANK C. GUINTA, NEW HAMPSHIHE
BLAKE FI\RFNTHOI 0, TEXAS
MIKE KELLY, PENNSYLVANIA
LAwnENCl J UHADY
STAFF DIRf:.CTOH
February 25,2011
The I-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Inspector General
Federal Housing Finance Agency
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Inspector General:
I am writing to request that you initiate an investigation into widespread allegations of
abuse by private attorneys and law tirins hired to process foreclosllres as part of the "Retained
Attorney Network" established by Fannie Mae. I also request that you examine allegations of
abusive behavior on the part of default managenlent firms engaged by both mortgage servicers
managing Fannie Mae-backed loans and attorneys and firms that are part of the Retained
Attorney Network. Finally, I request that you examine efforts by Fannie Mae and the Federal
I-Iousing Finance Agency (FHF'A) to investigate these allegations and implement corrective
action.
Allegations of Abuse in the Retained Attorney Network
In August 2008, Fannie Mae created "a new nlandatory network of retained attorneys to
handle all foreclosure and bankruptcy matters" relating to Fannie Mae mortgage loans, whether
held in portfolio or mortgage-backed securities. Fannie Mae required that only these retained
attorneys represent Fannie Mae 1110rtgage servicers, and it established the maximum allowable
reinlbursable fees for foreclosure-related work. I In December 2010, Fannie Mae Executive Vice
President Terence Edwards announced that the Retained Attorney Network would be expanded
from 31 to 50 states.
2
I Fannie Mae, Netv Foreclosure and BankruptL)l Attorney Netvvork and Attorney's Fees
and ('osts (Announcement 08-19) (Aug. 6, 2008) (online at https://www.efanniemae.com
/st/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2008/0819.pdt) (requiring also that '''requests for approval of excess
fees by Fannie Mae must be submitted via email''!).
2 Testilnony of l'erence Edwards, Executive Vice President, Credit Portfolio
Managelnent, Fannie Mae, before the u.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs (Dec. 1,2010) (online at www.fannielnae.coln/medialpdf/Edwards_
SenateBankingComnlittee_12-1-10. pdt).
3
'The Honorable Steve A. Linick
Page 2
Recent reports indicate that nlany of the private attorneys, law firms, and other entities
participating in the Retained Attorney Network have been accused of practices that are fraught
with flaws, errors, conflicts of interest, and fraud, and these allegations have prompted numerous
state and federal investigations.
For example, on August 10, 20 la, the Florida State Attorney General announced an
investigation into unfair and deceptive practices by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., the
l.Jaw Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., and Shapiro & Fishnlan, L.L.P. The allegations
against the tirlns include creating and filing with Florida courts improper documentation to speed
foreclosures and establishing affiliated companies outside the United States to prepare false
documents.
3
In announcing this investigation, the Attorney General stated:
On nunlerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to
the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judglnents against homeowners.
Thousands of final judglnents of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may
have been the result of allegedly inlproper actions of the law firlns under
4
InvestIgatIon.
Fornler enlployees of the Stern law firn1 also reportedly alleged that the firm engaged in
"robo-signing," a practice in which employees signed hundreds of foreclosure affidavits each
day, falsely swearing to have personal knowledge of the underlying documents. One employee
testified that the firln' s chief operating officer "signed as Inany as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a
day without reading a single word."s The elnployees also reported that the firln backdated and
altered documents, and that it took steps to cover its 111isconduct by changing the dates on
hundreds of docUlnents.
6
Last November, Fannie Mae issued a public notice stating that it had "terminated its
relationship with the Law Offices of David J. Stern" and inforlning servicers that they "may not
refer any future Fannie Mae nlatters to the Stern finn.,,7
the U.S. Trustee Progranl (UST'P) of the Department of Justice is
investigating another firnl in the J{etained Attorney Network, the firln of Steven J. Baum, P.C. of
A111herst, Ne\v York, for tiling foreclosure dOClunents that appear to be false or
3 Attorney General of Florida, Press Release: Floril1a Lalv Firms Subpoenaed Over
F'oreclosure [Jractices (Aug. 10, 2010) (online at \vww.nlytloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsfi
newsreleases/2BAC 1AF2A61 BBA398525777B0051 BB30).
4/
e
/.
5 1'he l?ise anel J?all qf'o Associated Press (Feb. 6, 2011).
6 Questions Risin<.g ()ver F'annie anlll;rel/llie 's ()vers(ght New York
rrilnes (Oct. 19,2010); The Foreclosure New York 'Tilnes (Mar. 20,2008).
7Fannie Mae, L)ervicing Notice: ]'erlnination lvilh the Stern Lavv Firm
(Nov. 1 20 10) (online at w\vw.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/
pdf/20 1O/ntce 11101 a.pdf).
J-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Page 3
attel1lpting to foreclose on borrowers after rejecting their attelnpts to 111ake on-tinle
and failing to prove ownership of mortgages as it seized homes. The firm has also been accused
of illegally charging for foreclosure-settlement conferences, overcharging on foreclosure fees,
and racketeering.
8
Another firnl in the Retained Attorney Network, McCalla Raymer, L.L.C., is a defendant
in a federal lawsuit in which the plaintit1s allege that it engaged in fraud, racketeering, and the
manufacture of fraudulent foreclosure documents. Reportedly, this firnl established operations
in Florida under the nalne Stone, McGehee & Silver and hired ten forlner Stern law firm
elnployees.
9
The firm Stone, McGehee and Silver, LLC, dba McCalla Raymer currently appears
as a "Designated Counsel/Trustee" in Florida for Freddie Mac.
ID
Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS), a $2.8 billion company headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida-and the largest provider of default loan services in the nation-is also
under investigation by the Florida Attorney General for producing apparently forged or
fabricated dOCUl1lents in foreclosure actions. 11 LPS is also a defendant in a federal suit alleging
an illegal fee-sharing schelne. Filed in federal bankruptcy court in Mississippi, the suit alleges
that LPS and another company, Pronlmis Solutions I-Iolding COlnpany, illegally required
attorneys in their networks to turn over a portion of their fees for foreclosure services, and that
another large law firnl, Johnson & Freedman, I-J.L.C., joined in this schenle. The Chapter 13
'rrustee [or the Northern District of Mississippi, a unit of the DepartInent of Justice, has joined as
a plaintiff. 12
A special investigation by Reulers last Decelnber reported that LPS and its affiliated
cOlllpanies also allegedly deployed low-skilled, non-lawyers to prepare foreclosure documents,
created invalid Inortgage assignl1lents to facilitate foreclosures, and rewarded attorneys for speed
rather than accuracy in filing court pleadings. Reuters reported:
8 See Federal Honle [.Joan Mortgage Corp. v. Raia, SP 002253/10, District Court of
Nassau County, New York (Henlpstead); Campbell v. Baunl, 10-cv-3800, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of New York Menashe v. Steven J. Baum P.C., 10-cv-5155, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District ofNe\v York (Central Islip); and Saum v. Lask, 2010- 012048,
New York Suprenle Court, County (Buffalo).
9 Novice J:;7orida Lcnv)Jers l.)llSIJicion in Foreclosure A1ess, Palm Beach Post (Jan.
13, 2011 ) (online at www.palnlbeachpost.com/nl0ney/real-estate/novice-florida-lawyers-draw
suspicion-in-foreclosure-nless-1146402.htnl1).
10 Freddie Mac, (]uicle Exhibit 79: Designate(/ ("olinselIT'rustee (Florida) (revised 2/8/11)
(online at wvvw. freddienlac.coln/service/nlsp/exh79_ n.html).
II ()ftice of the Attorney General of Case Nunlber L10-3-1 094 (online at
http://nlyfloridalegal.conl/_85256309005085AB. nsf/0/98099A9003203OBE8525771300426A
68?C)pen&I-lighlight==0,lps).
12 'Thorne v. Pronlnlis Solutions I-Iolding Corp. et aI., Second Amended Class Action
COlnplaint, 10-01172 (BR Oct. 10,2010).
l"'he I-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Page 4
The law firiTIS are on a stopwatch. [An LPS spokesman] COnfirlTIed that the LPS Desktop
systelTI automatically tinles how long each firm takes to complete a task. It assigns firnls
that turn out work the fastest a "green" rating; slower ones "yellow" and "red" for those
that take the longest. Court records show that green ratings go to firiTIS that jump on
offered assignlnents from their LPS computer screens and almost instantly turn out ready
to-file court pleadings, often using teanlS of low-skilled clerical workers with little
oversight fro111 the lawyers. 13
Although Fannie Mae terll1inated its relationship with the Stern law firm last November,
it does not appear to have terminated its relationships with any of the other firms described
above.
14
for Investigation
T'hese are serious allegations that nlay have affected thousands of homeowners. For these
reasons, I request that your office initiate a cOlnprehensive investigation into allegations of abuse
by attorneys and law firms participating in the Retained Attorney Network, as well as servicers
and default loan service providers alleged to have participated in these abuses.
It is Illy understanding that the ll1ission of your oflice is to "promote the economy,
etliciency, and effectiveness of the FHFA's progranls; to assist FHFA in the perforn1ance of its
111ission; to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in FHFA' s and to seek
sanctions and prosecutions against those who are responsible for such fraud, waste, and abuse.,,15
In 2008, FHFA replaced the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and became the
regulator and conservator for Fannie Mae. As such, the agency's duties include overseeing the
"prudential operations" of Fannie Mae and its contractors and ensuring that their activities and
operations "are consistent with the public
With this background, I request that you address the following issues with respect to
attorneys and law firnls participating in the Retained Attorney Network program and with
respect to other entities engaged by both mortgage servicers Inanaging Fannie Mae-backed loans
and attorneys and finns that are part of the Retained Attorney Network:
1. '"1"'0 what extent have hon1eo\vners lost their hon1es to inlproper, illegal, or otherwise
invalid foreclosures as a result of the types of abuses described above?
13 Jd.
14 Fannie Mae, I?etainecl /ll1orney List (effective February 10,2011) (online at
https: IIw\vw. efanni enlae. colnlsf/techno logyIservi nvreportlanl n/pdfl retai nedattorneylist. pdf).
15 Website of the Federal I-lousing Finance Adn1inistration Office of Inspector General
(accessed on Feb. 3,2011) (online at Www.fllfaoig.gov/).
16 Section 1313(a)( 1 I-Iousing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (P.L. 110
289).
'rhe I-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Page 5
2. To what extent have homeowners been charged inlproper, illegal, or otherwise invalid
fees during the foreclosure process?
3. 1"0 what extent are attorneys, law iirlTIS, and other entities engaged in fee-splitting,
kickbacks, or other silnilar schenles?
4. What is the total anlount in 'excess fees" that has been requested from Fannie Mae by
attorneys and law firlns? Of this amount, how much has been reilnbursed, and how nluch
has been deterlnined to be inappropriate or unwarranted?
5. I-lave FJ-IFA or Fannie Mae conducted investigations into allegations of abuse by
attorneys, law firlTIS, or other entities, and if so, \vhat are the results? Were these
allegations considered before the recent expansion of the Retained Attorney Network to
all 50 states?
6. What specific inforlnation has been collected regarding allegations against the following
firnls and their affiliates?
a. Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.
b. l.law ()ftices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
c. Shapiro & Fishn1an'l l.l.L.P.
d. Steven J. Baunl, P.C.
e. McCalla Raymer, L.L.C.
f. Johnson & Freednlan, L.L.C.
g. Prolnmis Solutions IIolding COlnpany
h. Lender Processing Services, Inc. and LPS Default Solutions, L.L.C.
7. t-Iave there been claims alleging that other attorneys or law firms participating in the
Retained Attorney Network progranl or any default nlanagement firms Inanaging the
foreclosure of Fannie Mae-backed loans have engaged in similar conduct that violates the
rights of borrowers or investors, federal or state foreclosure Initigation prograln
guidelines, federal or state la\v, federal or state judicial requirements, state bar ethics
requirelnents, or other regulations, rules, guidelines, or laws?
8. 'fo what extent have the alleged abuses described above underlnined loss and foreclosure
nlitigation efforts and outcoll1es? What responsibilities do loan servicers have in
1110nitoring and overseeing the activities of attorneys and other third party companies?
What are the levels of cure rate and loss Initigation activities among retained attorneys?
'rhe Honorable Steve A. Ljnick
Page 6
If you have any questions about this request, please have a member of your staff contact
Lucinda LJessley of the conlmittee staff at 202-225-4290.
'r'hank you for your consideration, and please feel free to contact me or my staff with any
questions.
Sincerely,
cc: The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairnlan
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
v.
MARSHALL CRAIG WATSON,
Respondent.
Supreme Court Case
No. SC-
The Florida Bar File Nos.
2011-51,042(171); 2011-50,500(171);
201 1-50,734(171); 201 1-50,737(171);
2011-51,143(171); 2011-51,312(171);
201 1-51,783(171); 2012-50,148(171);
2012-51,090(171); 2012-51,662(171);
2012-51,774(171); 2013-50,51 1(171).
CONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA FOR CONSENT JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the undersigned respondent, Marshall Craig Watson, and
files this Conditional Guilty Plea pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.9(a).
1. Respondent is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a member of
The Florida Bar, subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.
2. The respondent is currently the subject of Florida Bar disciplinary
matters which have been assigned The Florida Bar File Nos.: 2011-51,042(171);
2011-50,500(171); 2011-50,734(171); 2011-50,737(171); 2011-51,143(171);
2011-51,312(171); 2011-51,783(171); 2012-50,148(171); and 20 12-5 1,090(1 71).
3. As to the cases listed above in paragraph 2, there has been a finding of
probable cause by the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "I". The
following cases are pending at staff level: The Florida Bar File Nos.:
5
2012-51,662(171); 2012-51,774(171); and 2013-50,511(171). Respondent waives
his right to consideration by a grievance committee as provided for by Rule 3-7.4,
Rules of Discipline, and hereby stipulates that probable cause for further
disciplinary proceedings exists as to these matters based on prior determinations in
other cases.
4. The respondent is acting freely and voluntarily in this matter, and
tenders this Plea without fear or threat of coercion. Respondent is represented in
this matter and his counsels have also signed this Conditional Guilty Plea for
Consent Judgment.
5. The disciplinary measures to be imposed upon the respondent are as
follows:
A. As discipline, the respondent consents to the following: a
91-day suspension from the practice of law and payment of the Bar's costs
with the following conditions:
Respondent has scheduled an office procedures and record-keeping
analysis by and under the direction of the Law Office Management
Assistance Service (hereinafter referred to as LOMAS) of The Florida Bar
for January 14, 2013 through January 18, 2013. Respondent shall cooperate
MCW
with LOMAS and agrees that any contract to sell his law office contains the
condition that the new law firm will comply with all recommendations of
LOMAS. LOMAS may require such additional interviews as it may, in its
sole discretion, deem necessary or advisable. LOMAS has determined that
its fee for this review will be $30,000 and respondent has agreed to pay that
fee prior to the suspension contemplated in this consent judgment taking
effect. LOMAS shall provide the Lawyer Regulation Department of The
Florida Bar and respondent, through his counsels, with status reports as to its
analysis.
6. The following allegations and rules provide the basis for respondent's
guilty plea and for the discipline to be imposed in this matter:
A. Between at least 2006 and at least 2011, respondent, as the sole
owner, managing partner and shareholder of "The Law Offices of Marshall
Watson, P.A." failed to take reasonable steps to supervise and train his
employees. He also failed to develop, institute and maintain acceptable
policies and operating practices for his law firm to ensure he was complying
with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. His firm handled thousands of
foreclosure cases on behalf of various banks, lenders and financial
MCW
institutions during this period of time. Respondent's firm grew dramatically
during the height of the national foreclosure crisis and at the end of 2009 his
firm was handling over 66,000 cases with 71 lawyers and 597 support staff.
While not from clients, The Bar received numerous complaints against
respondent and his associates from four members of the judiciary as well as
defendants in foreclosure actions alleging violations of the Rules Regulating
the Florida Bar.
Respondent's firm employed an attorney as an independent contractor
in the role of an expert concerning the assessment of a reasonable,
acceptable, and appropriate attorney's fees in the mortgage foreclosure
actions that were being prosecuted by respondent's firm. This attorney was
hired by a managing attorney/employee of the firm who is no longer
employed by the firm. This attorney signed about 150,000 Affidavits of
Reasonable Fees (hereinafter AOR), which purported to attest, under oath, to
the truth and accuracy of the data and information set forth therein. An
undetermined number of those AORs were signed by that attorney outside
the presence of a notary public and then were later notarized by respondent's
support staff. Further, in numerous instances, that attorney was given only
the second (last) page of the AORs to sign. Those second (last) pages were
signed in bulk by that attorney outside the presence of ,^-n^tary and later
4
MCW
matched by respondent's employees with corresponding first pages. These
AORs were filed in various judicial circuits through the State of Florida as a
standard and customary practice. For a period of time between 1999 and
2010, respondent's firm paid this attorney $1.00 per AOR that he signed for
the firm and for a period of time he was not compensated. It is undisputed
that the fee amounts in the AORs were reasonable and The Florida Bar has
no evidence that the fees set forth in the fee affidavits were not reasonable;
the AORs for non-contested cases included only the contractual fees set by
the clients (lenders) and the AORs for contested cases were sent to the
expert with relevant parts of each file. Exemplar files of clients (lenders) on
non-contested cases also had been reviewed by the expert. Respondent
violated the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar for failing to have procedures
in place to ensure the integrity of the execution of the AOR.
As a result of respondent's failure to develop, institute and maintain
acceptable policies and operating practices for his law firm, between 2009
and 2011, attorneys employed by his law firm missed approximately 22 case
management conferences and failed to timely cancel foreclosure sales and/or
failed to pay clerks fees in approximately five cases.
MCW
Prior to 2010, respondent's law firm had a practice of filing unverified
foreclosure complaints alleging in the alternative that the note was lost
without confirming that its clients had in fact lost the note, which would
have been confirmed prior to judgment.
Respondent's firm failed to take reasonable steps to notify the court
and opposing counsel when an associate left his employ. Several former
employees advised the Bar that they specifically continued to request that
respondent remove their names as attorney of record on its client's case, but
their names were initially not promptly removed due to required upgrades in
the computer systems which were subsequently implemented.
B. Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 3-4.2 [Violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct as adopted by the rules governing The Florida Bar
is a cause for discipline.]; 3-4.3 [The commission by a lawyer of any act that
is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed
in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether
committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act
is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.]; 4-1.1 [A
lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent
representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.]; 4-1.3 [A lawyer
MCW
shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.];
4-3.2 [A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation
consistent with the interests of the client.]; 4-3.3(d) [The duties stated in this
rule continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if
compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule
4-1.6.]; 4-5.1 (a) [A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or
together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a
law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect
measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the
Rules of Professional Conduct.]; 4-5.l(b) [Any lawyer having direct
supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to
ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional
Conduct.]; 4-5.l(c) [A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders the
specific conduct or, with knowledge thereof, ratifies the conduct involved;
or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the
law firm in which the other lawyer practices or has direct supervisory
authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its
consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable
remedial action.]; 4-5.3(b) [With respect to a nonlawyer employed or
retained by or associated with a lawyer or an authorized business entity as
defined elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: (1) a partner,
and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses
comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts
MCW
to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance
that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of
the lawyer; (2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the
nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct
is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a
lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:
(A) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies
the conduct involved; or (B) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable
managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has
direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a
time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take
reasonable remedial action.]; 4-5.3(c) [Although paralegals or legal
assistants may perform the duties delegated to them by the lawyer without
the presence or active involvement of the lawyer, the lawyer shall review
and be responsible for the work product of the paralegals or legal
assistants.]; 4-8.4(a) [A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the
Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so,
or do so through the acts of another.]; and 4-8.4(d) [A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice.].
7. The following factors have also been considered by The Florida Bar
and provide further basis for the discipline to be imposed in this matter:
MCW
A. Respondent, since the height of the foreclosure crisis in 2009,
has taken reasonable steps to improve the policies and operating practices of
his law firm including: the creation of written procedures for the notarization
of affidavits including the creation of one-page Affidavits of Reasonable
Fees (AOR); the restructuring of departments under experienced new
managing attorneys; increasing the number of attorneys to over 100 and
significantly reduce the firm's case load; implemented and enhanced
computer program to timely reflect the assignment of new staff attorneys to
cases including generating Notices of Appearance; and corrected the internal
processes of distribution of mail and the scheduling of hearings.
B. The respondent has no disciplinary history, self-reported and
has fully cooperated with The Florida Bar's investigation; further,
respondent's laws firm is the only foreclosure law firm to date in the State of
Florida that entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC) for
best foreclosure practices with the Attorney General of Florida, has been
operating under said agreement since March 24, 2011, and has fully
complied with the terms and conditions of same.
8. The Florida Bar has approved this proposed plea in the manner
required by Rule 3-7.9.
9
"
MCW
9. If this plea is not finally approved by the referee and the Supreme
Court of Florida, then it shall be of no effect and may not be used by the parties in
any way.
10. Respondent understands that if this plea is approved by this Court,
pursuant to Rule 4-8.6(e) and (f) he will have to close down The Law Office of
Marshall Watson, P.A.
11. If this plea is approved, then the respondent agrees to pay all
reasonable costs associated with this case pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar
3-7.6(q) in the amount of $5,931.18. These costs are due within 30 days of the
court order. Respondent agrees that if the costs are not paid within 30 days of this
Court's order becoming final, the respondent shall pay interest on any unpaid costs
at the statutory rate. Respondent further agrees not to attempt to discharge the
obligation for payment of the Bar's costs in any future proceedings, including but
not limited to, a petition for bankruptcy. Respondent shall be deemed delinquent
and ineligible to practice law pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-3.6 if the cost
judgment is not satisfied within 30 days of the final court order, unless deferred by
the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar.
12. The respondent acknowledges the obligation to pay the costs of this
proceeding and that payment is evidence of strict compliance with the conditions
of any disciplinary order or agreement, and is also evidence of good faith and fiscal
responsibility. Respondent understands that failure to pay the costs of this
proceeding or restitution will reflect adversely on any reinstatement proceedings or
any other Bar disciplinary matter in which the respondent is involved. Subject to
10
MCW
compliance with paragraphs 5(A) and 11, nothing in this consent judgment shall
preclude respondent from filing for reinstatement pursuant to rule 3-7.10.
13. This Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgment fully complies
with all requirements of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Dated this day of _ , 2012.
Marshall Craig Watson
Respondent
1800 N.W. 49th Street, Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-3092
(954) 453-0365
Florida Bar ID No.: 365505
mwatson(5)marshallwatson.com
Dated this day , 2012.
)onald A. Wich, Jr. / /
Co-Counsel for Respondent^/
Donald A. Wich, Jr., P.A.
2036 N.E. 36th Street
Lighthouse Point, FL 33064-7596
(954)785-3181
[email protected]
11
Dated this 7/1 day of
Juan-CaiflosArias /
Co-Counsel for Respondent
Law Offices of Carlos A. Velasqtiez, P. A.
101 North Pine Island Roa^Suite 201
Fort Lauderdale,EJrl3324-1843
(954)382-0533
[email protected]
Dated this 13 day of , 2012.
Sheila Marie Tuma
Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar
Ft. Lauderdale Branch Office
Lake Shore Plaza II
1300 Concord Terrace, Suite 130
Sunrise, Florida 33323
(954) 835-0233
Florida Bar ID No. 196223
[email protected]
12
AN EDITORIAL INVESTIGATION
By JEFFREY GOOD, Times staff writer
St. Petersburg Times, published September 11, 1994
Third of four parts
How long must Karen Wanich wait?
Ms. Wanich is a 50-year-old woman with cerebral palsy who uses a wheelchair. When her Aunt Myrtle died,
she waited for the inheritance that would help her face old age with more than a government disability check.
The money never came.
When St. Petersburg lawyer Dennis D. Correa was convicted of stealing $900,000 from seven estates and
punished only with probation, Ms. Wanich and other beneficiaries waited for Correa to make good on his
promise of speedy repayment.
They're still waiting.
Twice trusting, twice betrayed: After seeing lawyers plunder their inheritances, victims of estate rip-offs
suffer again when the legal system leaves them empty-handed.
A judge set Correa free to make restitution, but officials have collected only a pittance. The Florida Bar
promises justice through a victim's repayment fund, but fails to deliver. State law provides for insurance
policies to compensate the victims of looted estates, but judges routinely skimp on this important protection.
It's bad enough that Florida law provides so many opportunities for dishonesty in probate estates and living
trusts. It's doubly outrageous that when money is taken, officials forget the victims.
After scraping for decades on a secretary's wage, Myrtle Trembley turned to lawyer Dennis D. Correa for
help in leaving a final gift to her niece and other loved ones. She trusted Correa completely, said Mrs.
Trembley's sister-in-law, Rosemary Dent. "He was like a god to her."
Correa returned that faith by stealing $391,000 from Mrs. Trembley's savings, and more than $500,000 from
six other estates. On Nov. 8, he stood before Pinellas Circuit Judge Claire Luten to admit his guilt and plead
for mercy.
Correa didn't come to court alone. An impressive parade of supporters filled the courtroom with talk of
remorse and restitution.
Correa's therapist said the lawyer felt deep sorrow and had "worked really hard in therapy." A financial
planner talked of giving Correa a job with a potential "six-figure income" that could help quickly repay
victims. Banking scion Hubert Rutland III pledged "my personal financial support."
Finally, there was Correa himself. He declared, "I will repay these people."
PPForgotten http://www2.sptimes.com/Pulitzer/PPForgotten.html
1 of 5 5/13/2010 7:47 AM
6
Judge Luten has slapped other rip-off artists with long prison terms. In this case, she went easy.
State sentencing guidelines allowed a 7-year prison term, and even Correa's lawyer hoped for no better than
two and a half years. But Luten decided instead to release Correa on probation. She cited his "strong support
group," his "sincere remorse," and his "desire to pay restitution."
That was ten months ago. By now, the restitution should be cascading in, right?
Wrong. Correa has paid less than 1 percent of his $910,000 debt. Karen Wanich's share so far totals only
$272.
Although Correa technically stole from his deceased clients, it is their beneficiaries who suffer. Take Ms.
Wanich. She is forced to rely on her father to make up the difference between a modest government disability
check and her needs for shelter, food and heat in the hard Pennsylvania winter. Bill Wanich does his best, but
he worries about what will happen when he's gone.
"I'm 74 years old," he says. "Who's going to take care of her?"
In stealing Aunt Myrtle's gift, Correa stole Karen Wanich's financial security and her father's peace of mind.
Wanich is outraged that the legal system set Correa free without demanding that he make good on the
promise of rapid repayment.
"As I see it, there's no penalty," Wanich said. "It's a joke on the whole legal system."
Correa has his excuses. His lawyer, Shawn Burklin, said Correa can't begin his "six-figure" job until a higher
court rules on prosecutors' appeal of Luten's probation sentence. Correa's prospective employer doesn't want
to train him for a job if he might go to prison, Burklin said.
But what of Correa's other resources? Property records show that he and his wife sold their home for
$327,000 shortly before Correa's arrest; what happened to the money from that sale? Burklin promised to
answer that question, but never called the Times back. Correa also owned a pleasure boat, which was sold last
year for $3,000. Once again, Burklin did not explain where that money went.
Correa did not answer questions from the Times, but his lawyer said, "He has a great desire to make full
restitution."
Correa's desire won't buy Karen Wanich one loaf of bread. Meanwhile, officials are doing little to hold Correa
to his promises.
The Department of Corrections, which oversees Correa's probation, has established a "suggested schedule" of
restitution that would have Correa paying $3,198 a month. Although Correa has paid just over one month's
worth of that sum, DOC spokeswoman Laura Levings said officials are satisfied: "The guy is making an
effort."
The lesson of Correa's case is clear. A lawyer who robs nearly $1-million from vulnerable clients can walk
away without a prison term or significant financial penalty. All he has to do is show up in court with some
fancy promises, and then stroll out the courthouse door.
As Correa enjoys his freedom, Karen Wanich waits for justice.
A fair share for lawyers
Many thieving lawyers are like Correa. They can't, or won't, repay stolen money. To help these people and
2 of 5 5/13/2010 7:47 AM
improve the legal community's image, Florida lawyers have created a victim's reimbursement fund.
The Florida Bar Clients' Security Fund is one of the oldest in the nation. It is far from the best.
Teresa Hile is one of the victims who went to the fund looking for a measure of justice. Hile had trusted St.
Petersburg lawyer Jay M. Thorpe to handle her mother's estate; instead, the lawyer stole $172,000.
Hile was devastated. At a hearing in May, Hile testified that the theft forced her to file bankruptcy, lose her
car, and forgo important care and medication for her learning-disabled son. Rather than being able to benefit
from her mother's life savings, she had to take a $5.50-an-hour job, even as she struggles to overcome breast
and bone cancer.
"Before all this happened, I could borrow $30,000 on my signature and I did," the 47-year-old testified. "Now
that's not possible, probably never will be in my lifetime. At a time when I should be retiring or be able to be
at home to take care of my health, I have to work in order to try to keep some insurance."
Thorpe was convicted of grand theft, ordered to repay the money, and sent to jail. So far, he has made no
restitution. In hopes of speeding reimbursement, Hile filed a claim with the Clients' Security Fund late last
year.
She shouldn't hold her breath.
According to a 1993 study by the American Bar Association, Florida's fund was the second-slowest in the
nation in paying claims. When and if the Bar gets around to paying Hile, it will likely reimburse only a
fraction of what her lawyer stole.
To appreciate how badly Florida's legal community treats its victims, consider a similar program in New
Jersey. While Florida takes a year to 18 months to pay most claims, New Jersey takes six months. While
Florida pays a maximum of $50,000 per claim (and often much less), New Jersey pays up to $200,000.
The key to New Jersey's success -- and Florida's failure -- is money. And not a lot of money.
In New Jersey, most lawyers contribute $50 a year to the victims' fund. In Florida, by contrast, each lawyer
chips in only $11. Starved for cash, the Florida fund relies on a hard-working but tiny staff and the lawyers
who serve as volunteer investigators.
Although on paper the fund pays up to $50,000 on large claims, it is so short on money that last year's
maximum payment was $35,000 -- in a state where lawyers have stolen ten times that much.
The Florida Bar clearly wants to use the Clients' Security Fund to improve its public image. It's time lawyers
put their money where their PR is.
The solution is simple: a modest increase in the fees lawyers pay to the victims fund. Increasing each lawyer's
yearly contribution by $40 would generate an extra $2-million for the fund, enough to elevate it toward New
Jersey's level of consumer service.
Forty dollars. That's how much an average estate lawyer would charge for fifteen minutes of his time. But ask
lawyers about that modest contribution, and listen to them howl.
We're honest professionals, the refrain goes. Why should we pay for the crimes of the bad apples?
Because decency demands it. Citizens trust lawyers to uphold the law that provides them with a handsome
living. When one lawyer violates that trust, every lawyer is diminished. The victims are waiting for Florida
3 of 5 5/13/2010 7:47 AM
lawyers to recognize that fact, and make amends.
Skimping on bond coverage
When all else fails, the law provides for an insurance policy to cover theft of estate funds. But all too often,
judges blithely eliminate this important safeguard -- and beneficiaries are left empty-handed.
The family of Inez Michelsen-Hoyer learned this lesson the hard way. When Ms. Michelsen-Hoyer died, the
family and judge saw no need to require a bond of the lawyer serving as executor of her estate. After all,
Michael L. Nikolas was the family lawyer, a man they trusted absolutely.
Nikolas returned that trust by stealing $414,000. According to court records, he used the money to pay office
expenses, make mortgage payments on his parents' home, and help run a place called Lou's Restaurant.
Nikolas pleaded guilty to grand theft last year, was sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to repay the money.
So far, he has paid about 1 percent of his debt. A bond could have repaid the entire amount, but the judge
presiding over the case said he generally waives that insurance policy for lawyers handling estates.
"I rarely require lawyers to post bonds," said Palm Beach Circuit Judge Gary Vonhof.
Such decisions are all-too-common. Judges routinely waive the bond, or require a bond too low to cover
assets vulnerable to theft. In Pinellas County, judges deserve credit for consistently requiring some bond, but
the bonds are often low. Pinellas court guidelines call for $100,000 estates to carry $25,000 bonds, for
instance, and $1-million estates to carry $100,000 protection.
Judges cite several reasons for skimping on bond coverage: They trust their lawyer colleagues. Some people
waive the bond in their wills (often at their lawyer's suggestion). But the most important reason, say judges
and lawyers, is to save estates the cost of a bond premium.
How absurd. Would these same judges insure a $100,000 home for one-quarter its value? Of course not. Yet,
that's exactly what they are doing with other people's property.
Here's the real irony: Estate bonds cost only a fraction of what they could save.
To guard against attorney Nikolas' $414,000 theft, the beneficiaries would have spent $1,395 on a yearly
bond premium. In the case of St. Petersburg lawyer Lauren Sill, who stole $270,000 from an estate, each of
the 32 beneficiaries could have had bond protection for $30 a year. (The expense would not come out of
pocket; bond premiums are simply subtracted from the inheritance.)
Surely, many beneficiaries would be willing to sacrifice a fraction of their inheritance to guard against losing it
all. If some wanted to go without a bond, they should be allowed to -- as long as they understand they are
giving up important protection.
Beneficiaries are waiting for judges to give them that choice -- before it's too late.
Lawyers occupy a special position of trust in our legal system. As officers of the court, they enjoy great
freedom and power. When lawyers abuse that power to plunder an inheritance, the system must help make
things right.
Too often, Florida courts and lawyers have forgotten that duty.
Recall the case study that began this series. Joe Thomas was an 86-year-old man who died believing that the
courts would distribute his life savings to 32 beloved grandnieces and grandnephews. Instead, attorney
4 of 5 5/13/2010 7:47 AM
Lauren Sill stole $270,000 -- nearly all the money.
Thomas' heirs are working folks who planned to use Uncle Joe's gift to pay off medical bills, send their kids to
school, or invest in a safer home. Instead, for years, they have waited.
Sill pleaded guilty to grand theft this year and was ordered to make restitution, but she has paid nothing.
Judges ordered an estate bond, but it only replaced $25,000 (some of which will cover legal expenses). A
claim is pending with the Bar's victim fund, but the heirs can only hope to collect a small slice of their
inheritance.
The money is lost. So is their faith in the Florida courts.
"They keep writing and telling us, 'Soon.' Why do they keep telling us that?" said one heir, Margaret
Jendrejzak. "It's just wrong. . . And nobody tried to make it right."
Like the other victims, Uncle Joe's family is waiting . . . to be remembered.
Home Page | Pulitzer Prize | Previous Story | Next Story
1995, Times Publishing Co., Email your comments to: Email Connections
5 of 5 5/13/2010 7:47 AM
7

Neil Gillespie
From: "Charles Dent" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:47 PM
Subject: Fw: From Attorney General Pam Bondi
Page 1of 3
2/22/2013

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:10 PM
Subject: From Attorney General Pam Bondi

Hello Mr. Dent,

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi received your inquiry asking for help
in recovering restitution from attorney Dennis Correa. Attorney General
Bondi asked that I respond.

We appreciate that you have considered our office as a source of
assistance, and I am truly sorry for your family's financial losses and
difficulties. I reviewed your correspondence for any jurisdiction by our
office. Our office is not at liberty to give legal opinions or advice to
private individuals; however, I hope the following information proves
helpful.

In regard to the criminal case and outcome, including court-ordered
restitution, the appropriate authority to address would be the State
Attorney's Office that handled the criminal case. In Florida, the elected
state attorneys in each of the twenty judicial circuits operate
independently and are not a part of the Attorney General's Office. Please
follow up with the Sixth J udicial Circuit State Attorney's Office for any
assistance or information available:

State Attorney's Office
Sixth J udicial Circuit
Post Office Box 5028
Clearwater, Florida 33758
Telephone: (727) 464-6221
Fax number: (727) 464-8105
Website: http://www.sao6.org/

You may also wish to contact the court to ensure the judiciary is aware of
your ongoing concerns about any noncompliance with court-ordered
restitution. As a part of the executive branch, the Attorney General's
Office does not have legal authorities over the decisions of a judge.

Since Mr. Correa was a lawyer, you should also communicate with The
Florida Bar in regard to any questions or concerns about the Clients'
Security Fund (please see
http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBConsum.nsf/48E76203493B82AD852567090070C9B9/1850D9
OpenDocument
8
). According to The Bar's website, "The Clients' Security Fund was created
by The Florida Bar to help compensate persons who have suffered a loss of
money or property due to misappropriation or embezzlement by an attorney."
The Florida Bar's decisions about the Fund are not within the Attorney
General's purview. Please contact The Florida Bar directly at:

The Florida Bar
651 East J efferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
Telephone: (850) 561-5600
Fax: (850) 561-5827
Website: http://www.floridabar.org/

Please continue to seek private legal counsel if you need any legal
assistance to ensure that your best interests are represented. An
attorney can provide the legal advice which our office is precluded by law
from giving to private individuals. The Florida Bar also offers a Lawyer
Referral Service at the above address. The toll-free telephone number is
(800)342-8060.

Thank you for contacting Attorney General Bondi's Office. I hope this
proves helpful.

Sincerely,

Michael Wise
Office of Citizen Services
Florida Attorney General's Office
PL-01, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Telephone: (850) 414-3990
Toll-free: (866) 966-7226
Website: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS ADDRESS IS FOR PROCESSING ONLY.

To contact this office please visit the Attorney General's website at
www.myfloridalegal.com and complete the on-line contact form. Again,
thank you for contacting the Office of the Florida Attorney General.
________________________________________________________________________

INTERNET MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ON 04/27/2012

Charles Dent
802 J ohn St.
Mifflinville, PA 18631

RE: Trembley Trust

Page 2of 3
2/22/2013
Subject: Lawyer that stole money from out trust

Years ago Attorney Dennis Correa Bar ID#146321 stole $ 391,000. from the

Trembley Trust. I want to know why Dennis Correa never went to jail and he
had
his restitution dropped from $ 3000. per mo. to 300. per mo. Since my
uncle
Harold Dent died, all communications have stopped and Mr. Correa has only
paid
several hundred dollars as ordered. Could someone please help me recover
the
money owed to our family? Maybe this will help. Circuit Civil No.
93-1423-13.
Pinellas County.

Page 3of 3
2/22/2013
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
December 7,2011
Mr. Neil 1. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Paul Hill asked me to respond to your email since it relates to discipline, wherein you state:
"Over the past year or so a number of people have contacted me through my website about
attorney misconduct and dissatisfaction with the Bar's discipline of these attorneys. The
following are some of the attorneys complained about, and all are profiled on my website:
Michael Vincent Laurato, Bar ID # 181447
Ryan Christopher Rodems, Bar ID # 947652
Allen Howard Libow, Bar ID # 899135
Robert W. Bauer, Bar ID #11058
Bar complaints have been made against all of the above, and the only one disciplined has been
Mr. Laurato. In addition, all of the above have been sued by clients or vendors. In every case the
amount of court resources consumed by these lawsuits is out of proportion to the initial dispute
because the lawyers are able to litigate at little expense. Each of the above attorneys have been
involved in multiple disputes with clients or other parties. These disputes are often public and
bring discredit to the practice of law.
It seems a small percentage of Florida's lawyers are responsible for the bulk of the alleged
misconduct. This undermines the profession and respect for the courts. Why is the Bar reluctant
to stop the practice of this small number of lawyers who misuse their law license in a manner of
revenge against people with legitimate disputes?"
The Bar is not reluctant to enforce the rules that all lawyers must follow. The Bar has no
authority to prohibit anyone, including lawyers, from filing a law suit. The Constitution requires
each individual have access to the Courts. If the lawsuit has merit then the plaintiff will prevail,
if not then the defendant will prevail and the Bar has no authority to intervene in a civil lawsuit
on either side.
9
THE FLORIDA BAR
Mr. Neil 1. Gillespie
December 6, 2011
Page 2
If the lawyer files a lawsuit against someone who has filed a complaint against that lawyer, the
complainant has the immunity provided for in Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1998). If
the Judge hearing the case makes a finding that the lawyer filed a frivolous pleading, then that
lawyer would have violated the below rule. In the case of The Florida Bar v. Kelly, 813 So. 2d
85 (Fla. 2002), Mr. Kelly was suspended for 91 days for filing a frivolous lawsuit against his
former client who had filed a grievance against him.
RULE 4-3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless
there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith
argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant
in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration,
may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be
established.
Comment: The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client's
cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive,
establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is not always
clear and never is static. Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of advocacy, account
must be taken of the law's ambiguities and potential for change.
The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely
because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop
vital evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform
themselves about the facts of their clients' cases and the applicable law and determine that they
can make good faith arguments in support of their clients' positions. Such action is not frivolous
even though the lawyer believes that the client's position ultimately will not prevail. The action
is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits
of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an. extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law.
The lawyer's obligations under this rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional law that
entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim or
contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this rule.
Sincerely,
J ~ Q ~
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin
Staff Counsel
Director, Lawyer Regulation
October 1, 2010
Brash Tampa lawyer attracts attention, both good and bad
By Colleen J enkins, Times Staff Writer
To some, this lawyer is a principled man; to others, he's a litigious jerk.
TAMPA
Michael Laurato hasn't grabbed many headlines during his 11-year legal career.
But once you notice him, you wonder how he ever escaped your attention.
"Some people like to come in under the radar," said his law partner, Robert Austin. "He's a B-52. He's
bombs away."
Laurato, 37, walks into his office wearing a tailor-made pinstripe suit, a chunky cigar jutting from his lips. His
hair is wavy, like the manes of the four lion statues flanking his desk.
He talks about winning and losing extravagant sums racing thoroughbreds. In September, his horse, Severe
Weather, finished last in the Pennsylvania Derby, dashing hopes for a $1 million purse.
A certificate on Laurato's wall shows he has won at least that much for a single client in civil litigation, an
arena where he's known to dig into opponents with a smile on his face. In an early victory, he collected
$491,720 in attorney's fees on a $30,000 stolen Ferrari claim.
"I'm not really intimidated by the odds, by power, by position," he said. "I could care less about popularity
contests."
That's fortunate, because he wouldn't often win one.
He goes to a baseball game and hears a stranger sneer his name. The critic could be anyone. "Who knows,
I may have sued them or I may have cross-examined them," he says. His tactics have drawn rebuke from
judges, a court reporter and the Florida Bar. "But I have my fans, too."
Laurato is unapologetic. He refuses to back down. And when he thinks he's right but isn't getting his way, he
does for himself what he does for clients.
He sues.
It might sound redundant to say Laurato is a civil trial lawyer who sues. Part of the job description, right?
He battles insurance companies that turn down claims for sinkholes and stolen cars. His client list includes
ousted Hillsborough County Commissioner Kevin White, who insists the county's insurance policy should
cover his legal bill for his sexual harassment trial.

Page 1of 3 St. Petersburg Times: Brash Tampa lawyer attracts attention, both good and bad
7/4/2011 http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTM0Mjk4MzU%3D
10
But Laurato doesn't stop there.
He has sued veterinarians who treat his thoroughbreds at racetracks and the insurance provider that
wouldn't pay for a rental car when his burglarized Bentley needed repair.
He sued Montblanc for trying to charge him to fix a leaking, limited-edition fountain pen.
And he sued Columbia Restaurant president Richard Gonzmart, his former father-in-law, for calling him a
loser at the courthouse.
One of his adversaries joked that he would sue his own mother if he had the chance.
"Maybe," Laurato said. "If you do me wrong, I'm gonna come getcha."
He wins some cases, loses others, and makes enemies along the way.
Three years after billing Laurato's firm $481 for a transcript, the owner of a California court reporting service
remains tied up in small claims litigation with the lawyer. She started a blog to vent her frustration.
"If people sue him for services and goods, he turns around and sues them," said the owner, Susan
DeMichelle. "He needs to be stopped."
"He's a real jerk," said Tim Baker, president of Naffco in Tampa, a company that fought Laurato in court after
he refused to pay for shutters installed in his home. "His attitude is, 'I'm not going to pay you. If you don't like
it, screw it, sue me.' "
Laurato doesn't consider himself litigious. He prefers amicable resolutions, but says things just seem to turn
ugly and personal. And he can't very well mediate disputes with a tussle in the park like he did during his
high school days at J esuit in Tampa.
"I can pay," he said, pulling a thick wad of cash from his pocket. "That's not the problem. But I'm not going to
pay something that I'm rightfully owed. It's just not right."
He figures he got some of his fighting spirit from his father, an Italian from New York who taught his son the
art of handicapping horses. Laurato says he butted heads with authority from an early age, getting kicked
out of Corpus Christi Catholic School in Temple Terrace for throwing a paper ball at a nun.
It was through his mother, a manicurist from Cuba, that he was introduced to the law.
He sometimes tagged along when she did Frank De La Grana's nails, and he remembers being impressed
by the criminal defense lawyer's style. He later came to admire the work ethic of Barry Cohen and the
tenaciousness of Arnold Levine - Tampa lawyers who don't get pushed around.
Laurato earned a law degree from George Washington University, then returned home.
One friend calls him the ultimate advocate - he isn't afraid to speak his mind and usually has the law to back
him up.
"He acts out of principle," said Howard Levine, a Miami Beach lawyer. "If people don't upset him, he's
generous with everybody."
. . .
Laurato wanted the wooden shutters installed in time for a spectacular holiday bash.
"I had plans," he said in a deposition. "I envisioned beautiful white shutters intertwined with Christmas lights
surrounded by holly. I envisioned, during Christmas, a beautiful woman walking under my French doors with
a piece of mistletoe hanging there."
When the shutters didn't arrive, he called off the party. He tried to cancel the contract. When the shutters got
installed anyway, he refused to pay the $3,600 balance.
The company sued. Laurato sued back.
He wound up paying for both the shutters and, by one account, $40,000 of his opponent's attorney's fees.
The fight didn't stop there.
The Florida Bar took issue with the lawyer testifying during his deposition that he had never been sued for
breach of contract when, in fact, he had. Laurato said he didn't do anything wrong.
A judge was assigned to referee the dispute. After hearing all the evidence, he wrote a report to the Florida
Supreme Court.
These are some of the words he used to describe Laurato's answers.
Sarcastic.
Flippant.
Argumentative.
Nonsensical.
Laurato has not been previously disciplined. But the judge recommended he be found guilty of misconduct,
and the Bar wants to yank his license for 60 days.
Some lawyers might take their licks and move on. Not Laurato. He filed what amounts to an 80-page
objection.
If he gets suspended, he said, "I need a break."
He may not get one either way. The Bar is also looking into his actions surrounding a client's sinkhole claim.
In April, Circuit J udge Martha Cook ruled that Laurato and a couple he represented had committed "fraud
upon the court" by submitting a false affidavit.
He went head-to-head with the judge in a court filing, accusing her of wrongly disparaging him.
Those recent cases prompted this story. Laurato wasn't keen about it being written.
"You must be completely bored," he told a reporter. "I guess I can't stop you."
If he doesn't like it, will he sue?
He smiled.
"You better get it right."
Colleen Jenkins can be reached at [email protected] or (813) 226-3337.
St. Petersburg Times

2011 St. Petersburg Times. Permission granted for up to 5 copies. All rights reserved.
You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing ht t p: / / l i cense. i copyr i ght . net / 3. 8618?
i cx_i d=1125394 into any web browser. St. Petersburg Times and St. Petersburg Times logos are registered trademarks of St.
Petersburg Times . The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc.
Gillespie p1 of 2
1
DR. KARIN HUFFER
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082
ADAAA Titles II and III Specialist
Counseling and Forensic Psychology
3236 Mountain Spring Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89146
702-528-9588 www.lvaallc.com
October 28, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I created the first request for reasonable ADA Accommodations for Neil Gillespie. The
document was properly and timely filed. As his ADA advocate, it appeared that his right
to accommodations offsetting his functional impairments were in tact and he was being
afforded full and equal access to the Court. Ever since this time, Mr. Gillespie has been
subjected to ongoing denial of his accommodations and exploitation of his disabilities
paraplegic if he does not show up at a deposition leaving his wheelchair behind. This is
precedent setting in my experience. I intend to ask for DOJ guidance on this matter.
While my work is as a disinterested third party in terms of the legal particulars of a case,
I am charged with assuring that the client has equal access to the court physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Critical to each case is that the disabled litigant is able
to communicate and concentrate on equal footing to present and participate in their cases
and protect themselves.
11
Gillespie p2 of 2
2
cannot be unrung. He is left with permanent secondary wounds.

Additionally, Neil Gillespie faces risk to his life and health and exhaustion of the ability
to continue to pursue justice with the failure of the ADA Administrative Offices to
respond effectively to the request for accommodations per Federal and Florida mandates.
It seems that the ADA Administrative offices that I have appealed to ignore his requests
for reasonable accommodations, including a response in writing. It is against my
medical advice for Neil Gillespie to continue the traditional legal path without properly
being accommodated. It would be like sending a vulnerable human being into a field of
bullies to sort out a legal problem.
I am accustomed to working nationally with courts of law as a public service. I agree
that our courts must adhere to strict rules. However, they must be flexible when it comes
to ADAAA Accommodations preserving the mandates of this federal law Under Title II
of the ADA. While public entities are not required to create new programs that provide
heretofore unprovided services to assist disabled persons. (Townsend v. Quasim(9th Cir.
2003) 328 F.3d 511, 518) they are bound under ADAAA as a ministerial/administrative
duty to approve any reasonable accommodation even in cases merely regarded as
having a disability with no formal diagnosis.
The United States Department of J ustice Technical Assistance Manual adopted by
Florida also provides instructive guidance: "The ADA provides for equality of
opportunity, but does not guarantee equality of results. The foundation of many of the
specific requirements in the Department's regulations is the principle that individuals
with disabilities must be provided an equally effective opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a public entity's aids, benefits, and services. (U.S. Dept. of J ustice, Title II,
Technical Assistance Manual (1993) II-3.3000.) A successful ADA claim does not
require excruciating details as to how the plaintiff's capabilities have been affected by
the impairment, even at the summary judgment stage. Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv.,
Inc., 283 F.3d. My organization follows these guidelines maintaining a firm, focused and
limited stance for equality of participatory and testimonial access. That is what has been
denied Neil Gillespie.
The record of his ADAAA accommodations requests clearly shows that his well-
documented disabilities are now becoming more stress-related and marked by depression
and other serious symptoms that affect what he can do and how he can do it particularly
under stress. Purposeful exacerbation of his symptoms and the resulting harm is, without
a doubt, a strategy of attrition mixed with incompetence at the ADA Administrative level
of these courts. I am prepared to stand by that statement as an observer for more than
two years.

TEL 866.996.6104 Attorney at Law Jeff Childers
FAX 407.209.3870
URL www.smartbizlaw.com

Sixth Street Executive Center
1330 NW 6
th
Street, Suite C
Gainesville, FL 32601
37 North Orange Ave., Suite 500
Orlando, FL 32801
[email protected]
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
RE: Analysis of Case and Recommendation

Dear Neil,
My thinking on how to recommend that you should proceed has matured as I have
reviewed the extensive materials you provided as well as carefully considered the matter. I
have spoken with both Mr. Bauer as well as Mr. Rodeems at this point. I have also performed an
economic analysis of the case, which is represented by a spreadsheet and an attached letter
explaining the spreadsheets figures and assumptions. Please review the economic analysis
materials before proceeding to read this letter.
Merits of the Case
There are two challenges facing this case. The first is the diminished probability of
success on the merits from this point forward in the case. The second challenge is the small total
or economic projected recovery, compared to the high investment which would be required to
achieve a successful verdict.
The case at this point is not a clear winner. The basic facts of the case make the case
appear strong such that if it were to get in front of a jury, prospects for success on the merits are
similarly strong because of the egregious disparity in the split between the attorneys and the
plaintiffs in the AMSCOT case, which appears facially unreasonable (as you put it, 90% of the
recovery was paid to the attorneys). But there are problems with the case that both may
preclude it surviving until trial and also may serve to diminish any potential recovery even if it
is litigated to a successful verdict.
The first substantive problem with the case is the fundamental confusion as to whether
there is a contract (which is not entirely clear because the copy attached to the complaint is not
executed), or whether there is no contract and the claim lies purely in tort (i.e., fraud). The
economic loss rule, as properly alleged by the Defendants, precludes a suit for fraud in a breach
12
Page 2 of 4

of contract case on the same transaction. Of the two possible claims (contract or tort), the
contractual claim is probably stronger because it will be more difficult to prove actual damages
in tort (i.e. if there was no fee splitting agreement by contract, Defendants will argue that the
Defendants split was proper even if wrongfully documented). The contractual claim is also
easier to prove than a claim founded in fraud. The problem with the contract claim is that
punitive damages are generally precluded in breach of contract.
1

Many of the actions of the Defendants appear to have been reprehensible. As one
example, it appears that the Plaintiffs name was forged onto the bottom of the Closing
Statement. However, the legal significance of this act is limited to defeating the affirmative
defense of waiver (i.e. the Plaintiff never accepted the closing statement because it is not
really his signature). Forgery is a crime and this forgery may give rise to some criminal liability,
but it is not a basis for additional damages. Further, this issue will have to be litigated along
with the other alleged defenses, adding to the cost of the litigation.
Even if the issue of liability were found in Plaintiffs favor, the Defendants have yet
more arguments about the amount of damages. They may be able to show by quantum meruit
that they are entitled to a portion larger than the 40% allowed by the Bars rules.
2
It is not
difficult to imagine that more than $50,000 in attorneys fees and costs may have been expended
in the case, as it apparently was litigated through appeal. The court may give weight to an
equitable quantum meruit argument, given that Plaintiff is relying on equity to such an extent
and because of the potential unclean hands defense.
Next, the Defendants have some defenses which are not trivial, both legal defenses as
well as equitable appeals which may be made to a jury. First, the letter written by Plaintiff
advising the AMSCOT defendant that the settlement he agreed to was too large might be
successfully characterized by the Defendants as an admission by Plaintiff that the damages are
smaller than Plaintiff claims. Next, because Plaintiff inartfully worded a communication
regarding his intention to file bar grievances against the Defendants in the same communication
wherein a settlement was discussed, the possibility exists that Defendants may be able to
successfully characterize this as an extortive and improper attempt to force a settlement where
none was otherwise merited. This particular defense might be used by a skillful advocate to
turn a jury against the Plaintiff and make the Plaintiff out to be a professional litigator instead
of a deserving victim. Finally, pre-settlement documents exist suggesting that the Plaintiff
admits he would have been satisfied with a $1,000 settlement amount, which will be used by

1
. Farnsworth, Contracts, 12.3, at 157 (3d ed. 1999) ("Punitive damages should not be awarded for breach of
contract because they will encourage performance when breach would be socially more desirable.").
2
In cases where there is no contract or a breached contract, the court will frequently set aside the language of the
contract and look to the actual value of the services provided as a guide to how much an attorney should be paid.
This doctrine is known as quantum meruit, a Latin phrase meaning "as much as he has deserved".
Page 3 of 4

Defendants to imply that Plaintiff, who actually received twice that amount, is improperly
trying to grab a share of an award that was larger than he expected. Furthermore, it appears
from these documents that Plaintiff had prior knowledge of the amount he might receive in
settlement and did not object at that time. The Defendants will use this fact to question why
Plaintiff only objected after the fact.
The issue of the projected recovery looms large and advocates strongly against
continuing the litigation. Even if the Plaintiff could prove he was entitled to a 55% share of the
cost-adjusted recovery, that share must be reduced by two-thirds (because it would have had to
have been shared with the other two plaintiffs in that case), making the actual damages
relatively small. This affects the potential recovery for punitive damages, as three times the
relatively small actual damages is still small. To put these figures in context, it appears that the
Plaintiff has already paid twice the actual damages in attorneys fees to date in the case and
there is still essentially no complaint filed.
3
I have seen nothing in the pleadings filed to date
which would provide a legal basis for the Plaintiff to recover his fees and costs, which will be
governed by the American Rule.
4
Therefore, setting aside the fees expended to date as a sunk
cost, the economic analysis looks only at the costs of going forward, which do not justify the
investment to recover either the projected economic recovery amount or even the full potential
recovery amount.
Finally, my opinion is just that an opinion. Another attorney might have a different
take or discover another cause of action that would provide a larger potential recovery
justifying the investment. For example, Mr. Bauer is more optimistic about success on the
merits than I am. You may wish to consider getting another opinion. But, it appears from my
analysis that the only substantive result of continuing to litigate would be an expensive
scorched earth endgame or potlatch.
5

Recommendations

3
I.e. the current complaint is deficient and will have to be amended by a new complaint that is largely re-written,
which will re-set all case deadlines and permit more discovery, new motions to dismiss, motions for summary
judgment, and a new answer with affirmative defenses and counter-claims, all of which will have to be dealt with
just as they were the first time around.
4
The American rule provides that each party is responsible to pay its own attorney's fees unless specific authority
granted by statute or contract allows the assessment of those fees against the other party. Under the American
rule every party even the party prevailing must pay its own attorneys' fees. The American rule contrasts with
the English rule, under which the losing party pays the prevailing party's attorneys' fees. Contrast this case with
TILA or FDCPA claims, where both statutes provide for attorneys fees. Here, the claims are common-law and not
statutory, and no basis has yet been proposed for payment of attorneys fees.
5
An American-Indian ceremony whereby valuable possessions are destroyed in the sight of allies or enemies in
order to demonstrate the strength or wealth of the destroying party.
Page 4 of 4

Neil, I recommend that you negotiate and execute a three-way mutual release of all
claims against the Defendants and Mr. Bauer. Given the economics of the case, the complexity
of the current issues including those which have arisen since the inception of the case, and the
physical, psychic and emotional toll it is taking on you personally, it seems to me that it is time
to exercise mature discretion and abandon this project in favor of more productive activities.
In no way should you interpret my recommendation as a critique of your entitlement to
the damages. I believe you win the abstract argument. The problem is that enormous cost is
required in order to prove in a court of law that you are right. Furthermore, the issues have
been clouded by the subsequent (understandable) actions of yourself and those of others.
I have spoken with both parties and I believe that some minor outstanding issues could
be successfully negotiated. I think such an agreement is not only possible but likely if you
concur with this course of action. Such a release should require no parties to pay any other
party any amount. For example, Mr. Bauer told me that he would be willing to waive his
outstanding attorneys fees to achieve the settlement and release from all current and future
claims. The Defendants would waive any entitlement to their counter-claims. You would waive
your claims against the Defendants and against Mr. Bauer for any potential professional
malpractice or negligence.
Thus, by settling via a walk away agreement, you would relieved of liability for and
thus to the good in the amount of almost $25,000 ($11,550 plus $12,517).
There is an outstanding issue of the disposition of approximately $600 in cash which has
been garnished but not yet turned over. I believe it may be possible to require the other parties
to allow you to keep this amount as part of the settlement, but this is not certain and the $600
6

should be considered a negotiating asset.
Neil, you may wish to work with Mr. Bauer to put this settlement together. Or, if you
prefer to have independent counsel, I would be happy to represent you in drafting the
settlement and causing it to be executed. My estimate for this service would be two hours (1.5
hours to draft an agreement satisfactory to all parties, and .5 hours for negotiating via phone
and email).
I hope that you have found this analysis to be helpful.
Very best regards,

Jeff Childers

6
Or whatever the actual amount is.

TEL 866.996.6104 Attorney at Law Jeff Childers
FAX 407.209.3870
URL www.smartbizlaw.com

Sixth Street Executive Center
1330 NW 6
th
Street, Suite C
Gainesville, FL 32601
37 North Orange Ave., Suite 500
Orlando, FL 32801
[email protected]
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
RE: Economic Analysis Spreadsheet
Dear Neil,
In this letter, I will explain my thoughts and assumptions relative to the economic
analysis of your case, as represented by the spreadsheet which you should have received
contemporaneously with this letter.
The spreadsheet concludes that the cases return on investment is negative.
There are four columns. The Item column represents either a potential recovery,
which increases the net value of the case, or a projected cost, which decreases the net value of the
case. Costs can be either hard costs such as attorneys fees and court costs, or soft costs such
as the cost of litigation-related illnesses and emotional harms. The Amount column represents
the best estimate of the actual recovery or cost for the category. The Prob% column represents
the probability of achieving the recovery or incurring the cost. The Eco Value column
represents the economic value of the item, i.e. the projected amount times the probability the
amount will actually be recovered or incurred.
Next I will discuss each individual item.
Actual Damages.
1
I calculated actual damages as follows. The award of $56,000 was
reduced by 45%, the amount a jury would likely allow the Defendants for their contingent fee.
This figure is based on the unexecuted contract attached to the Complaint. Furthermore, the
Bar allows that attorneys may pay actual costs before application of the contingent fee. Accepting
the costs as recited in the Complaint, the award is reduced by $6,125.46. Next, the amount is

1
The Complaint calculates actual damages a little differently. I went with my figures because they are more
favorable (and I believe, correct).
Page 2 of 5

divided by three to obtain the amount that should have been paid to the Plaintiff, and further
reduced by the $2,000 that was already paid to Plaintiff. I.e.:
Actual Award $56,000 $56,000
-Costs -$6,125.46 $49,874
- 45% Contingent Fee -$22,443 $27,431
- 2/3 due to the 2 other clients -$18,286 $9,143
- $2,000 already paid -$2,000 $7,143
==============
Total Actual Damages $7,143.00
2

Thus, as you can see, the maximum recoverable actual damages in this case are likely to
be $7,143. Next, the spreadsheet adjusts the maximum actual damage figure by the probability
of prevailing, which I calculated as 51%, or just more likely than not. Of course, these estimates
are largely subjective. I would have calculated the chance of prevailing on the merits as 75% at
the outset of the case, but given the cases history and the events which have transpired since
inception, I am forced to reduce the probability of succeeding on the merits to 51%. Thus, the
economic value of the actual damages in this case is $3,643.00.
Punitive Damages. As you know, punitive damages are more difficult to obtain. There
are both legal and factual barriers to pleading and proving punitive damages.
3
The Defendants
may convince the court that punitive damages were not plead properly or are not available in
this case, in which event the jury is not permitted to consider punitive damages. Also, punitive
damages are granted up to three times actual damages, and there is no guarantee that a jury
would award the full treble damage amount. Still, I used treble damages, which is a maximum
recoverable amount of $21,431. Furthermore, any punitive damages award can be overruled by
the judge, and appealed separately. Therefore, the probability of succeeding with punitive
damages is accounted for as half of the probability of succeeding with actual damages, or 25%.
Therefore, the economic value of the punitive damages at this point in the case is only $5,357.00.

2
As you can see, I did an independent calculation of damages, which amount was very close to your own figures.
3
In fact, on January 13, 2006, the court ordered the demands for punitive damages to be stricken from the
Complaint, so, actually, no current demand for punitive damages exists (presumably it might be re-plead in an
amended complaint). Also, to the extent that the suit succeeds on a breach of contract and not tort claim, punitive
damages are excluded. Farnsworth, Contracts, 12.3, at 157 (3d ed. 1999) ("Punitive damages should not be
awarded for breach of contract because they will encourage performance when breach would be socially more
desirable.").
Page 3 of 5

Award of Attorneys Fees. Under the American Rule, each party must pay its own
attorneys fees and costs. Unless an exception is granted by agreement between the parties or by
statute, there is no provision for the prevailing party to recover its fees and costs. The un-
executed representation contract attached to the Complaint contains no provision for attorneys
fees. I am aware of no other such agreement or statute that would apply in this case, beyond a
bare equitable appeal to the court. The spreadsheet therefore allows for no recovery from the
Defendants of fees and costs.
Subtotal, Forecast Recovery. Thus, the maximum recovery at 100%, i.e. full certainty of
succeeding in the litigation as to both actual and punitive damages, is $28,574. However,
adjusted for the probability of succeeding on the merits at this point in the case, the maximum
economic recovery is only $9,001.
Bauers Outstanding Fees. Mr. Bauer has a claim to his fees of $12,517.41, at least as of
the most current invoice that I was provided. On the one hand, he may have difficulty proving
his entitlement to the fees, due to some evidence that an attempt was made to renegotiate the
contract to a contingency basis. However, since that evidence is not conclusive and represents a
triable issue of fact, the probability of incurring additional costs to litigate the fees issues offsets
the reduction in probability that Mr. Bauer can recover them. Furthermore, generally speaking,
most ethical attorneys would require the Plaintiff to resolve the fees issue with predecessor
counsel before agreeing to take the case (as I would). Thus, there will be pressure to pay the fees
or come to an amicable settlement. Accepting Bauers figures, the economic cost of the
outstanding fees to Mr. Bauer at this point in the case is $12,517.41.
New Attorneys Fees. A new attorney would be required to litigate the case through
trial. Given the extensive history of the case, some non-trivial cost would be incurred in
reviewing and understanding the almost four-year history of this litigation (8 hrs). Then,
amendment of the complaint (4 hrs), response to various outstanding motions and issues
including the garnishment and counter-claims (26 hrs), preparation for trial on the substantive
issues and defenses (30 hrs), and the trial itself (30 hrs) will require substantial attorney time. At
an estimated $250 per hour, for 98 estimated attorney hours (loosely including paralegal time,
costs etc as part of the hours estimate), the fee for completing the case would be $24,500. Note
that any new attorney would have to consider the highly aggressive and acrimonious nature of
this particular litigation. This cost to complete the case is certain to be incurred, accounted
therefore at 100% probability. The economic value of this cost is $24,500.
4

4
It is unlikely a new attorney will offer a discounted, flat-rate, or contingency fee to take this case. The Defendants
have shown there is NO likelihood of a positive-cash settlement. Thus, there is no possible reward offsetting the
risks posed by this case. The only conceivable basis for a new attorney to proceed would be on a strict time and
materials basis with a substantial up-front retainer.
Page 4 of 5

Cost to Litigate Appeal. Based on their litigious behavior to date, the Defendants in this
case are almost certain to appeal any favorable ruling. Thus the spreadsheet reflects a
probability of 99% that any favorable verdict would be appealed. An average state-court appeal
is typically valued at $25,000, making the economic cost of this item $24,750.
Unpaid Judgment to Rodeems. Defendants are entitled to collect on their judgment for
sanctions in the amount of $11,550. As I understand the present status, some $400-$600 were
garnished by the bank and are awaiting an order of the court for release. If Plaintiff prevails at
trial, it is likely any award will be setoff by this amount if it is not already paid. Thus, 100%
probability the entire cost will be incurred, economic value $11,550.
Subtotal, Projected Costs. The total projected costs, which will likely be incurred
whether or not Plaintiff prevails, are $73,317.41. This amount should be considered the direct costs
avoided by ceasing litigation at this point. I note that the smallest cost in this category, the Unpaid
Judgment, eliminates almost entirely the projected recovery.
emotional ill effects resulting from the litigation, as described in Legal Abuse Syndrome, the
book provided to me by Plaintiff. It is always difficult to put a dollar figure on the non-
pecuniary costs of any case, and this case is no different. In attempting to evaluate the physical
and emotional costs of going forward with the litigation, I considered both short and long-term
effects, and the opportunity cost caused not just by direct time invested in the case but also by
loss of energy related to physical and emotional side-effects. My estimate was $100,000, but this
figure is subjective and the Plaintiff may wish to adjust this figure upwards or downwards.
There is 100% probability these costs will be incurred regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
Net Value of Case. The net value of the case is calculated on the spreadsheet by netting
all the projected costs of litigation from the projected economic recovery. In this case, the
spreadsheet calculates that the net value of the case is negative $164,316.
In summary, even if the figures are manipulated in the most favorable way, such as by
raising the probability of succeeding with actual and punitive damages to 100%, erasing Mr.
Bauers attorneys fees, forecasting that no appeal would be filed, and waiving the emotional
and physical costs to Plaintiff, the case still would still be in the red by over $7,000
((7,143+21,431)-24,500-11,550). The assumptions that the costs would be limited in this way are,
obviously, unrealistically optimistic.

Page 5 of 5

The issue to my mind, therefore, is how to exit the case with the lowest possible cost.
Please see my letter regarding a recommended course of action for my suggestions in this
regard.

Respectfully,

Jeff Childers
0.00
Gillespie, Economic Analysis of Litigation
Item Amount Prob% Eco. Value
Actual Damages =($56,000 - 6125.46 - (($56,000-6125.46) x 45%)) / 3 - $2,000
Punitive Damages (up to 3x actual damages)
Award of Attorney's Fees
Subtotal, Projected Recovery
Bauer's Outstanding Fees
New Attorney fees: review and litigate case through trial
Cost to Litigate Appeal
Unpaid Judgment to Rodeems (sanctions)
Subtotal, Projected Costs
Non-pecuniary cost of litigation-provoked illness and emotional costs
Subtotal, Non-Pecuniary Costs
NET VALUE OF CASE {RETURN ON INVESTMENT}
$ 7,143.67 100%
$ 21,431.00 100%
$0 0%
$ (12,517.41) 0%
$ (24,500.00) 100%
$ (25,000.00) 0%
$ (11,550.00) 100%
$ (100,000.00) 0%
7,143.67
21,431.00
28,574.66
0.00
(24,500.00)
0.00
(11,550.00)
(36,050.00)
0.00
0.00
{1,415.34}
Item
Actual Damages =($56,000 - 6125.46 - (($56,000-6125.46) x 45%)) / 3 - $2,000
$
$
Amount
7,143.67
21,431.00
$0
Prob%
51%
25%
0%
Eco. Value
3,643.27
5,357.75
0.00
Subtotal, Projected Recovery 9,001.02
$
$
$
$
(12,517.41)
(24,500.00)
(25,000.00)
(11,550.00)
100%
100%
99%
100%
(12,517.41)
(24,500.00)
(24,750.00)
(11,550.00)
Subtotal, Projected Costs (73,317.41)
Non-pecuniary cost of litigation-provoked illness and emotional costs $ (100,000.00) 100% (100,000.00)
Subtotal, Non-Pecuniary Costs (100,000.00)
NET VALUE OF CASE (RETURN ON INVESTMENT) (164,316.39)
Item Amount Prob% Eco. Value
Actual Damages =($56,000 - 6125.46 - (($56,000-6125.46) x 45%)) / 3 - $2,000
Subtotal, Projected Recovery
Subtotal, Projected Costs
Non-pecuniary cost of litigation-provoked illness and emotional costs
Subtotal, Non-Pecuniary Costs
NET VALUE OF CASE (RETURN ON INVESTMENT)
$ 7,143.67 0%
$ 21,431.00 0%
$0 0%
$ (12,517.41) 100%
$ (30,000.00) 100%
$ (50,000.00) 100%
$ (11,550.00) 100%
$ (100,000.00) 100%
0.00
0.00
0.00
(12,517.41)
(30,000.00)
(50,000.00)
(11,550.00)
(104,067.41)
(100,000.00)
(100,000.00)
(204,067.41)
0.00
No: 12-7747
_______________________
IN THE
____________________
vs.
________________________
________________________
Appendix 1 Letter of J eanne P. Gray, Director of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility
Appendix 2 Letter of J ack Thompson, J D, to the Florida Legislature, February 18, 2012
Appendix 3 Letter of J ack Thompson, J D, to Myles V. Lynk, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on
Professional Discipline, March 4, 2013
Appendix 6 Composite, Florida Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft, Re: Robert W Bauer complaint

Center for Professional Responsibility
321 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 988-5325
Fax: (312) 988-5491
Website: www.americanbar.org/

Associ ate Executi ve Director
ABA Publi c Services Group
Director, CPR
J eanne P. Gray

ETHICS Unit

Lead Senior Counsel
Dennis Rendleman

Associate Counsel
Eileen B. Libby

Senior Counsel ETHICSearch Director
Peter H. Geraghty

ETHICSearch Associate Counsel
Susan Michmerhuizen

Lawyers Manual

Lead Senior Counsel and
Managing Editor
Ellen J . Bennett

Associate Counsel and Attorney Editor
Elizabeth J . Cohen

Attorney Editor
Helen Gunnarsson

Marketing and Pl anning Unit

Director
Angela L. Burke

Sr. Membership & Marketing Specialist
Benjamin Woodson

Program Specialist
Krista D. Herman

Policy and Program Unit

Director
Marcia Kladder

Senior Research Paralegal
Natalia Vera

Paralegal
Kimley Grant

Committee Specialist
Annie Kuhlman

Policy Implementation and
Client Protection

Lead Senior Counsel, Policy
Implementation and Client Protection
J ohn A. Holtaway

Client Protection Counsel
Selina Thomas

Professionalism and Speci alization

Deputy Director, CPR
Professionalism Counsel
Arthur H. Garwin

Senior Counsel
Paul A. Haskins

Senior Counsel Specialization
Martin Whittaker

Regulation

Lead Senior Counsel,
Regulation and Ethics 20/20
Ellyn S. Rosen

Deputy Regulation Counsel
Theresa Gronkiewicz

Associate Counsel,
National Lawyer Regulatory Data Bank
Vita Levar

February 19, 2013

Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Your letter of February 18, 2013 addressed to ABA President Laurel G. Bellows was referred
to me for response. Your inquiry relates to the program of discipline system consultations
administered by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Professional
Discipline, which is designed to assist the judiciary in developing and strengthening
professional disciplinary enforcement. The Standing Committee has developed lawyer
discipline consultation criteria adapted from the ABA Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary
Enforcement and from the 1992 McKay Commission Report, which was referenced in your
letter.
The principal component of this process is that it must be initiated by invitation of a
jurisdictions highest court requesting the ABA Standing Committee on Professional
Discipline to conduct an on-site review of the entire lawyer discipline system by a team of
national experts. The team conducts extensive interviews with disciplinary staff, discipline
system adjudicators, bar officials, complainants, respondents, respondents counsel, members
of the judiciary and others who have had contact with or a role in the states discipline system,
and reviews court rules, reports and statistics. Thereafter, the Standing Committee provides
its report and recommendations to the jurisdictions highest court on a confidential basis. The
report is designed to assist the court to improve its system by providing constructive
recommendations based upon the teams investigation, its collective knowledge and
experience, and consideration of the consultation criteria.
Without a direct invitation from the Florida Supreme Court, the Standing Committee is not
able nor authorized to provide lawyer discipline system consultation services. Since the
program is designed to assist the judicial branch of government in the execution of its
regulatory function, the jurisdictions highest court must affirmatively extend the invitation to
the American Bar Association.

Thank you for your interest in our consultation program.
I hope this letter is responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

J eanne P. Gray
Associate Executive Director, ABA Public Services Group
Director, ABA Center for Professional Responsibility
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Appendix 1
5721 Riviera Drive
305-666-4366
[email protected]
February 18, 2012
The lawyer discipline system in this state is catastrophically broken. Its very regulatory
structure is fatally flawed according to a landmark finding of the American Bar
Associations McKay Commission. The ABA offered the State of Florida an impartial
audit of its bar discipline system, and both the Florida Supreme Court and Bar refuse the
audit because they know how damning the Florida-specific audit would be.
The Bar itself has just conducted a survey of state judges who have filed bar complaints
against lawyers. I had to pry the results of this survey out of The Bar via a public records
request, as The Bar is hiding this survey from the public. No wonder; therein is
contained the most stunning statistical proof of governmental ineptitude I have ever seen:
Nearly three-fifths (58%) of judge respondents say they are dissatisfied with the
disciplinary job The Bar has done. A staggering 82% of all county, circuit, and appellate
judges in the most populous District (the Third DCA) are dissatisfied with the job The
Bar is doing! Yet The Bar has now officially decided not to fix the ABA-identified fatal
structural flaw in certain state bars that explains this catastrophic Florida Bar failure.
And this indictment of The Florida Bar is from judges who filed complaints. You would
think The Bar would at least do a good job in Bar complaint cases filed by judges. Can
you imagine what the general publics experience and level of dissatisfaction with Bar
discipline is? In Broward County, for instance, the level of judicial dissatisfaction is a
whopping 65%. This is the county in which Scott Rothstein embedded himself in The
Bars grievance system and funneled huge amounts of money to The Bar in order to buy
protection from it.
Did you know that The Bar founded and helps run a malpractice insurer that protects its
insured lawyers from discipline? The Bar has become, literally, a protection racket. J ust
ask Scott Rothstein and his Ponzi scheme victims.
I have spoken at length, face-to-face with one of you Senators from South Florida, who
agrees with me that any judicial branch budget coming out of this session must contain a
Appendix 2
2
mandate that the Florida Supreme Court and Bar submit to the aforementioned ABA
audit of its broken lawyer discipline system. The Supreme Court is supposed to oversee
this mess, and it is not doing so. Even Chief J ustice Canady and J ustice Polston have
found, The Florida Supreme Court has abdicated its duty to supervise The Florida Bar.
You need to make the judiciarys receipt of our tax dollars contingent upon the Supreme
Courts getting its lawyer discipline system in order. There are dozens of Scott
Rothsteins out there.
Please contact me for more information on this scandalous emergency. I will meet with
any and all of you to explain how bad this is and what must be done.
We are tired of open season declared by The Florida Bar on Floridians. You must, before
this Session ends, tell the Supreme Court that its funding is tied to getting its corrupt
house in order.
Copy: Media
J ohn B. Thompson, J .D., M.A.
Member of the American Bar Association
5721 Riviera Drive
305-666-4366
[email protected]
February 23, 2013
Myles V. Lynk, Chair
ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline
Arizona State University College of Law
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906 Via e-mail to [email protected]
Re: Written Proffer of Live Testimony at ABA National Conference on Professional
Responsibility, May 30-31, in San Antonio, Texas
Dear Chairman Lynk:
I appreciate very much your taking my call this past week regarding the above. I should
like hereby to give you and the Committee a glimpse of my anticipated testimony at the
above-noted event as the ABA, through your Committee, undertakes what has become its
review, every twenty years or so, of state bar disciplinary structures and methods. I am
swearing an oath, at the end of this letter, attesting that the assertions herein are all true.
The ABA Needs to Hear from Lawyers Who Have Been Disciplined
You on the Committee know better than I who has and who has not provided information
to your preceding counterparts on the Clark and McKay Commissions, but I would
suspect that lawyers who have horror stories to tell about their disciplinary experiences
have not been heard enough. J ust as criminal law procedures and safeguards have rightly
emanated from prosecutorial shortcomings in specific cases (Miranda, Gideon, Faretta),
so too state bars and the ABA can and should learn from instances of over-zealous,
unconstitutional bar prosecutions, not only because the rights of the lawyer can be
infringed upon but also because the clients who want bar-targeted lawyers to represent
them might thereby can be denied, wrongly, their lawyers of choice. We dont just need
an independent judiciary in this country; we also need independent lawyers who can
champion unpopular causes, no matter what entrenched minorities those causes
inconvenience.
Indeed, the McKay Report, which informs your deliberations, says this in this regard:
It is easy to forget how fragile our liberties are. Beyond our borders are myriad
examples of the need for an independent legal profession. Around the world, suppression
of the legal profession is a basic tool of authoritarian governments. Amnesty
Appendix 3
2
International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights have units that specialize in
monitoring political arrests of lawyers. As you will see below, here in Florida our Bar
could not survive an investigation by Amnesty International.
An historical example of note: One of the first things Adolf Hitler did in consolidating
his power in the Reich was disbar all J ewish lawyers, as he knew that in doing so he
could silence certain voices and causes in German courts of law.
Similarly US Supreme Court J ustice William O. Douglas presciently opined in Lathrop v.
Donohue that eventually integrated state bars would become goose-stepping brigades
enforcing uniformity of thought and speech. Those brigades are marching here out of
Tallahassee.
The McKay Commission Report, then, is wonderfully mindful and expressive of the fact
that lawyers have rights, rising to the level of constitutionally guaranteed rights, and that
they do not surrender those rights upon becoming lawyers. Expressive of that important
fact I submit to your Committee this letter, and request the opportunity to present live
testimony, as we discussed the other day, in order to prove, irrefutably, that The Florida
Bar, operating in the fourth most populous state in the Union, is pretending the ABA, in
these regards and on these important issues, simply does not exist.
The Florida Bars Structure Violates the Recommendations of the McKay Report
Eight individuals served on the ABA McKay Commission. One of the eight was J ohn T.
Berry. Mr. Berry put his name to the McKay Report, and thus he presumably subscribes
to its findings. There has been no public disavowal by Mr. Berry of the Report and its
recommendations.
Mr. Berry was at the time of the 1992 issuance of the McKay Report an official with The
Florida Bar. That is why he served on the Commission. Mr. Berry is now the second
most powerful full-time official of The Florida Bar, serving as the Director of its Law
Division.
I do not need to tell you, Chairman Lynk, or the other members on your Committee, that
the McKay Reports Recommendation 1 is that each state should have J udicial
regulation of the profession and direct and exclusive judicial control of lawyer
discipline This sine qua non of the reform of state bar discipline is fully spelled out
in the McKays Reports crystal clear Introduction:
The Need for Direct and Exclusive J udicial Control of Lawyer Discipline
To strengthen judicial regulation of the profession, it must be distinguished from self-
regulation. Control of the lawyer discipline system by elected officials of bar associations
is self-regulation. It creates an appearance of conflicts of interest and of impropriety. In
many states, bar officials still investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate disciplinary cases.
3
The state high court should control the disciplinary process exclusively. It should appoint
disciplinary officials who are independent of the organized bar.
Recommendation 5 spells out what direct and exclusive judicial control means:
Recommendation 5: Independence of Disciplinary Officials
All jurisdictions should structure their lawyer disciplinary systems so that disciplinary
officials are appointed by the highest court of the jurisdiction or by other disciplinary
officials who are appointed by the Court. Disciplinary officials should possess sufficient
independent authority to conduct the lawyer discipline function impartially:
5.1 Elected bar officials, their appointees and employees should provide only
administrative and other services for the disciplinary system that support the operation of
the system without impairing the independence of disciplinary officials.
5.2 Elected bar officials, their appointees and employees should have no investigative,
prosecutorial, or adjudicative functions in the disciplinary process. (emphases added)
The McKay Reports Recommendation 6 explains further the Chinese Wall that must
be erected between elected bar officials and the lawyer discipline function, reserving that
function solely to the highest court in any state:
Recommendation 6: Independence of Disciplinary Counsel
6.1 The Court alone should appoint and remove disciplinary counsel and should provide
sufficient authority for prosecutorial independence and discretion.
In the Comments section of Recommendation 6 are found these words: Disciplinary
counsel should be insulated from political pressure from the public, members of the bar,
and adjudicative officials of the disciplinary agency including members of the Court in
order to provide effective and fair enforcement of the rules of professional conduct.
(emphases added)
The disharmony between what J ohn T. Berry, sitting on the McKay Commission,
recommended and what The Florida Bar now does by virtue of its disciplinary structure,
could not be more stark:
The Florida Bar has more than fifty Bar Governors, each elected by the lawyers in our
respective twenty judicial circuits. The Florida Bars By-Laws accurately state that these
Governors oversee the entire lawyer disciplinary process. Sitting on every single Bar
Grievance Committee is a Bar Governor, serving as its most powerful member, as his/her
title thereon suggestsDesignated Reviewer. The Designated Reviewer is tasked with
guaranteeing the fairness of the disciplinary process. He or she control the process.
See proof of all of this extreme insinuation of and control by Governors as Designated
Reviewers from the very start of the disciplinary process at
4
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVEXE/BD/CMStanding.nsf/4fc96bb91076af6085256eec00
5ae6a7/7a320b4a6b5c0ef885256ea700540625!OpenDocument.
Also, in contrast with what the McKay Report advises as to staff prosecutors, these are
hired and fired by the Bar Governors. If they do not toe the line in any regard, they will
be dismissed. They are not answerable to the Supreme Court but rather to the politicos
on the Board of Governors.
In addition to this violation by The Florida Bar of the McKay Reports Recommendations
1, 5, and 6, a clear and consequential state law is being violated by these Grievance
Committees, to-wit: It is a violation of Florida law for any resident to serve in more than
one branch of government. Despite this law, dozens of Florida Bar Grievance
Committees have on them political office holders and officials from the executive branch
of state government, most notably prosecutors from the twenty judicial circuits in their
respective State Attorney offices and even Assistant U.S. attorneys.
In Florida, State Attorneys are among the powerful and influential politicians in the state.
This is yet another insinuation and infection of political influence, in addition to that of
Bar Governors, in the bar discipline process here in Florida. It was just this type of
influence that prompted the McKay Commission to author Recommendations 1, 5, and 6.
The Florida Supreme Court and Bar Have Refused an ABA Audit Of Our States
Lawyer Discipline System
Florida remains one of the small number of states which has refused to allow an impartial
audit and assessment by the American Bar Association of its lawyer disciplinary system
offered by the ABA in the wake of the McKay Commission Report. Why? Because
Florida knows it would flunk the ABA test.
This is all the more remarkable in light of Mr. Berrys aforementioned service on the
McKay Commission, and in The Florida Bar then and now. Indeed, Mr. Berry served on
the ABA Lawyer Discipline Audit Committee that officially reviewed the California
State Bar, at that states request. Not surprisingly, the California ABA Audit by Mr.
Berry and his fellow analysts listed as their first and most important recommendation in
their Report, the need to get all state bar officials totally out of the disciplinary process!
See
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=PCgwZ3vcePM%3D&tabid=224&m
id=1534 Physician, heal thyself.
Having briefly touched on the structural defects within The Florida Bar which the
American Bar Associations McKay Commission identified (with the McKay Reports
recommendations then having been adopted by the House of Delegates), I turn briefly to
a truncated account of my discipline at the hands of The Florida Bar, horribly flawed in
large part by virtue of the wholesale refusal of The Florida Bar to comply with the
McKay Report. My horror story is just one of many in The Sunshine State:
5
The Florida Bars Twenty-Six-Year Vendetta against J ack Thompson
In the interest of brevity and so as not to overburden you on the Committee, I herewith
provide a truncated version of events, about which I am delighted to provide more details
and corroboration, if they are requested, by way of live sworn testimony to your
Committee in Texas in May.
Tyndale House, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, one of the largest Christian publishers
in the world, published my autobiography, Out of Harms Way, in November 2005. It is
an account of a) my efforts, as a lawyer, against the illegal and harmful distribution of
adult-rated entertainment to minors, and b) the entertainment industrys and The Florida
Bars collaborative use of fraudulent bar discipline to destroy my legal career.
I mention the Tyndale House book because that reputable publishing house vetted
everything in the book and found it to be true, including the actions of The Florida Bar.
In 1987, I filed formal complaints with the Federal Communications Commission
asserting that broadcast decency standards passed by Congress were being violated by a
Miami-area shock radio jock who was soliciting teenaged boys for sex on the public
airwaves. The words quoted in the previous sentence were penned by and sent to the
FCC by the Executive Director of the well-known Adam Walsh Foundation in support of
my FCC filing.
The attorneys for the offending radio station filed bar complaints against me asserting I
was fabricating my charges. These lawyers persuaded a local judge, who had been Chair
of the Florida Chapter of the ACLU, and who personally led the successful effort to
persuade the national ACLU to change its policy position to decriminalize the possession
of child pornography, to ask The Florida Bar to have J ack Thompson declared mentally
incapacitated by virtue of his obsession with [against] pornography, which obsession
renders him unfit to practice law by virtue of that mental disability.
At that time, J ack Harkness and the aforementioned J ohn T. Berry were top Bar officials.
The Bar, ex parte, went before the Florida Supreme Court and persuaded it to enter an
order compelling me to submit to immediate psychiatric and psychological testing by
experts chosen by The Bar to determine if I was mentally incapacitated by virtue of my
concerns about harm done to kids by pornography distributed to them. Failure to agree to
such testing would result in my immediate suspension from the practice of law.
I was examined, and both experts found that I was perfectly sane and simply acting out
my Christian faith in the public square. They gave me an utterly clean bill of health.
This was revealed as a transparent and utterly desperate effort to hijack The Florida Bars
disciplinary processes, in corroboration of the McKay Commissions concerns, in order
to pathologize my Christian faith.
Despite that ultimately exonerating Bar finding by The Bars own experts, chosen by The
Bar, I was subjected to tremendous public ridicule with headlines such as Is This
6
Lawyer Too Crazy to Practice Law. When exonerated and declared in effect, the only
officially certified sane lawyer in the state of Florida, there were no similar headlines
vindicating me. The impact on my practice of law was devastating. But by Gods grace,
my practice was eventually restored.
On the way to that restoration, the Federal Communications Commission then levied its
first decency fines ever, pursuant to the FCC complaint against the aforementioned shock
radio station I had filed.
The Bar Integration Order of 1949 by which the Florida Supreme Court made
compulsory lawyers membership in The Florida Bar had thus been proven wise. In that
Order, the High Court promised that bar discipline would not be allowed to be used by
one lawyer against another. The Florida Bars Preamble to its own Bar Rules prohibits
the use of ethics complaints by one lawyer against another as a means of collateral attack.
I never had a client complain about my conduct. I had opponents using The Bar to defeat
me when they could not beat me in the public square or in a court of law. This is
precisely the hijacking of the bar disciplinary process that so obviously concerned the
McKay Commission and should continue to concern the ABA.
In 1992, after pleading guilty to the offence of contacting an opposing party because that
partys on-air personality was threatening my and my wifes lives, and receiving a public
reprimand for this clearly legal and ethical conduct, I contacted The Florida Bars
insurance carrier to alert it to what The Florida Bar had done to me and how it had
illegally done it. The carriers claims representative stated, This the worst thing I have
ever seen any insured ever do to anyone. That carrier then paid me money damages for
the improper use of lawyer discipline by The Florida Bar. It is the only such payment by
any bar or its insurer that I or anyone else has ever been able to find.
I pause to note that this fact alone is compelling evidence that The Florida Bar has been
out of control, for one would think that The Florida Bar, having been tagged by its own
insurer in the very year that the McKay Commission Report was issued, would have
learned its lesson, as to both how to treat J ack Thompson and more importantly how to
impart discipline in line with ABA recommendations with structures insulated from such
political hijacking. Such was not the case. Having provided this background, I relate
what was more recently done to me by a state bar that has no regard for the ABAs
perspective on lawyer discipline:
Fast forward to 2004, when I filed FCC decency complaints against the Howard Stern
Show. Stern was airing in the Miami market and around the nation pornographic
segments, for example, with female amputees who were describing placing their
lubricated stumps in the anuses of men. Now thats entertainment, and at 8am with
children in the audience. He was also airing racist comments clearly prohibited by the
FCC, such as:
What do nigger chicks smell like? Watermelons? I and others who had begun our
public lives in the civil rights movement did not do so in order to grant to Howard Stern
7
the right on the public airwaves, to violate federal laws governing through the air
broadcasts passed by Congress.
The lawyers for the local Stern broadcasters, one of whom was one of the lawyers who
had used The Bar to pursue Thompson a decade earlier, filed Bar complaints against me
asserting I was making all this up as to the content of the programming.
Then, in March 2005, I appeared on CBS 60 Minutes for the second time, this time to
explain, at the request of Ed Bradley, that an African American teen had trained on the
cop-killing simulator, the Grand Theft Auto video game, to kill three cops whose
surviving family members I was representing in a wrongful death action I had filed, pro
hac vice, in Alabama. The teen had been illegally sold the adult-rated game as a minor
by Wal-Mart.
Mr. Ed Bradley had interviewed me in a similar story six years earlier because of the
Columbine school massacre. I had predicted on NBCs Today the Columbine massacre a
week before it happened, predicting that the same video game that trained the Paducah
High School murderer, who killed the three daughters of my clients in December 1997,
would train other boys in other American high schools to kill. Klebold and Harris had
in fact done so.
Because of this second 60 Minutes appearance, a) I worked with three state legislatures
to pass laws I drafted prohibiting the sale of adult-rated video games to minors, b) I
prepared then Senator Hillary Clinton for a press conference that led to a Resolution
passed by Congress condemning the makers of the Grand Theft Auto video games, and c)
Readers Digest published an original article ballyhooing my legal work against violent
video games and the MRI-based brain science supporting it. I note that the Sandy Hook
school killer trained on these very video games.
This was too much for the law firm of Blank Rome, which represented the makers of the
Grand Theft Auto video games, to bear. Blank Rome filed a motion to revoke my pro
hac vice admission in the Alabama cop-killing/video game/wrongful death action. The
trial judge was more than happy to grant the motion as he was the white judge who
presided over the all-white jury that put the black teen on death row. He wanted to deal a
fatal blow to our wrongful death action by removing from it the lawyer who brought it.
This white judge thus protected the verdict and the sentence in the criminal case in which
he, the judge, had denied any semblance of a video game defense, even by way of
mitigation. If we had prevailed in the civil case, the criminal case result would have been
sullied.
The Florida Bar took that pro hac vice revocation as the basis for its own complaint
against me for, among other things, allegedly appearing on 60 Minutes for the sole
purpose of improperly influencing an adjudicative proceeding. This complaint was
brought despite the fact that both Alabama and Florida Bar rules allow the appearance of
a lawyer in the mass media to discuss their case within its four corners as filed,
8
particularly if a matter of public safety is involved.. There was not gag order, nor could
there be. The Alabama judge said so.
Nevertheless, The Florida Bar combined my alleged conduct in Alabama with the
Howard Stern Show complaint and proceeded against me in Florida with both
complaints. There was a third complaint brought by a Florida judge against me because I
had dared repeat what our Third District Court of Appeal had said about his improper
conduct.
It is important to note, parenthetically, that it was wholly improper for The Florida Bar to
proceed against me in Florida for what I had allegedly done in Alabama in two regards:
The Florida Bar has a Rule as to Choice of Law that mirrors the ABAs Model Rule 8.5.
A lawyer is to conform his conduct with the rules of the host state, which in this case was
Alabama. Further, The Florida Bars own rules mandate that the Alabama State Bar had
to proceed against me first, with The Florida Bar only enforcing reciprocal discipline for
what I had allegedly done in that state.
The Florida Bar violated both Rules. In fact, the Alabama State Bar dropped its
proceedings against Thompson. In the charging document brought by The Florida Bar
against me, I was charged with violations of Florida Bar Rules and Alabama Bar Rules,
and the findings of the referee are totally silent as to the latter, which were the only Rules
I could have violated and been tried for! Be that as it may, it gets worse:
1. The bar referee selected for me, Dava J . Tunis, had had no training to serve as a
bar referee, which training is mandated by The Florida Bar.
2. She was serving on the Circuit Court by virtue of a forged state-and federally-
mandated loyalty oath.
3. When my wife, also a lawyer, was diagnosed with potentially fatal ovarian
cancer, which necessitated surgery and arduous chemotherapy, this referee denied
me a continuance, despite the fact that I was her and our sons primary care
provider.
4. After Tunis was assigned my bar disciplinary case, she received campaign
contribution checks from the Bar Governor assigned as Designated Reviewer to
my case and from the Miami bar prosecutor assigned to my case, in the same
amount and dated the same day. Clearly this violates the US Supreme Courts
ruling in Caperton v. Massey, as it raises the specter of improper influence upon
an elected judge by the appearance of orchestrated, influence-buying campaign
contributions.
5. This Designated Reviewer, Ben Kuehne, had been very active politically on some
of the very issues, including radical gay rights, in which I had been involved. He
had every right to do so, but he could not fairly serve as Bar Governor/Designated
Reviewer in my case involving some of those same political/ideological/moral
issues.
6. When Kuehne had to remove himself from Bar Governor duties because he was
under investigation by the J ustice Department for allegedly laundering money for
the Medellin cocaine cartel, he was replaced as my Designated Reviewer by Bar
9
gay marriage (I had and have, very publicly) should be prohibited from the
practice of law. I had gone from the Kuehne frying pan into the Chaykin fire.
7. Proof of The Bars politicization of my disciplinary process because of Chaykin
(note again the ABA McKay Reports stern warning that elected bar officials
should have nothing to do with lawyer discipline for this very real possibility that
politics rather than guilt might decide cases), I and The Bar, upon my insistence,
engaged in negotiations to try to resolve this entire matter. A ninety-day
suspension with automatic reinstatement was on the table. I entered mediation
ready, willing, and able to take the deal. However, The Bar added to it, out of the
blue, a requirement that I had to submit to a battery of subjective psychiatric and
psychological tests that would not be objective, as before in 1992, in nature.
There was, as before, absolutely no basis whatsoever for such testing. One of The
Bars own respected clinical psychologists, recognized as such by The Bar, told
me this was a trap to make sure I never practiced again. He said that the only
proof of my insanity would be to agree to such nonsense. He examined me at my
behest and informed The Bar I was perfectly sane. The Bar would not relent. It
said Submit to our subjective tests by our experts or we shall have you disbarred.
No ninety days suspension was now possible. Get on our subjective couch or be
disbarred. Once again, The Bar was attempting to pathologize my Christian faith
and activism.
8. We had a nine-day bar trial before J udge/Referee Dava Tunis. She refused to
rule, and never has ruled, on any of my constitutional and legal defenses. She is
absolutely required by Florida Bar Rules to issue findings of law. She refused to
do so. She ordered me to remain silent at my sentencing/sanctions hearing after
the guilt phase.
9. The Florida Supreme Court treated as uncontested the Bar referees report
recommending my disbarment, because the High Court entered an order
prohibiting me from representing myself in clear violation of the Sixth
Amendment, the US Supreme Courts ruling in Faretta, and a Florida statute and
a constitutional provision expressly guaranteeing, absolutely, the right of any
Florida resident to represent himself in any proceeding of any kind before any
tribunal in Florida.
10. The Supreme Court had entered such an order because I had proven nettlesome
in filing with the High Court writs of prohibition trying to alert them to ongoing
denials of procedural and substantive due process in the bar proceedings below.
When I retained three separate attorneys to represent me in these Bar proceedings,
The Bar threatened all three should they continue to represent me. Thus, I was
stripped of my right to represent myself and of my ability to hire anyone to
represent me. I was rendered mute. Not since Englands notorious Star Chamber
has a person been denied, in our jurisprudential system, the right of self-
representation. However, this is a recurring trick of The Florida Supreme Court
and The Florida Bar, as they deny the right of self-representation to lawyers who
prove too nettlesome in their bar proceedings. And yet there was no formal rule
to do so until after The Bar and the High Court did this to me, as my name is
mentioned in the comments section of the new ex post facto, bill of attainder
Rule! So the Supreme Court passed a Rule after the fact and before they even
10
passed that Rule with my name in it, they applied it to me. Maybe there is a new
category of prohibited rule-making: super ex post facto.
11. I found that the costs affidavit of The Florida Bar was perjured, as it contains
improper charges for witness vacations and luxury hotel rooms. I was denied an
opportunity even to be heard at the trial level and by the Supreme Court, with the
result that I had to pay $42,000 in falsified costs for the privilege of being
disbarred.
12. One of the findings of fact relied upon by the Florida Supreme Court in my
disbarment order is the fact that I had lied about the pornographic, indecent
nature of the Howard Stern Show. Three weeks after my permanent disbarment
order was entered (permanent disbarment does not even exist in Florida in such
an instance), the Federal Communications Commission entered into a formal
Consent Decree with the lawyers for the Howard Stern Show broadcasters. These
were the lawyers who had brought the Bar complaint against me alleging I had
made all this about Stern up. The FCC Consent Decree mandates the payment by
the Stern broadcasters of forfeiture monies into the US Treasury because of FCC
decency complaints filed and brought by Miami attorney J ack Thompson. This
brought to $4.5 million the amount of FCC fines levied against broadcasters of
the Howard Stern Show in large part because of complaints brought by me. Thus
we have, three weeks after my permanent disbarment, a formal federal
government action that vindicates me and what I had written and said about Stern
and his lawyers, and the Florida Supreme Court will not allow me even to place
before it a petition to modify its disbarment order. Thompson was hallucinating
and so is the United States government.
13. Finally, this last event in The Bars discipline of me in effect sums up what it
was all about. After my Bar referee entered her Report of Referee, which failed
to rule on any and all legal and constitutional issues raised, and after she
recommended a sanction that under Florida law does not even exist, she
journeyed to the Annual Florida Bar Convention in Orlando, Florida. There she
was presented with the highest award that can be bestowed by The Bar: The Bar
Presidents Award of Merit. She was given this Award, she was publicly told,
because of her performance in my Bar disciplinary matter. This was bribery in
the light of day.
The Florida Bars Corruption Has Now Corrupted the Florida Supreme Court
In Floridas last general election, three of our Supreme Courts J ustices were faced with a
retention election. No judge at any level in Florida had ever failed to win retention.
However, these three J ustices were concerned about the fact that certain Iowa Supreme
Court J ustices were defeated in retention battles in 2010.
Two of these Florida Supreme Court J ustices appeared in J anuary 2012 before The
Florida Bars Board of Governors in their retention elections asking for The Bars help in
their retention fights. They got it. The Bar Governors illegally approved the expenditure
of $300,000 from Bar members dues to fund a voter retention education effort, the
sole purpose of which was to assure that these three J ustices would be retained. It is not
11
even debatable that The Bars use of bar members dues for illegal electioneering violates
the U. S. Supreme Courts unanimous ruling in Keller v. State Bar of California. By the
way, one of the lawyers on the losing side in Keller was Barry Richard of Greenberg
Traurig, who is The Florida Bars outside general counsel. Mr. Richard and his wife
raised and bundled money for the retention of these three J ustices, which is wholly
improper in light of his repeated appearances before the Supreme Court (see, again,
Caperton v. Massey). Mr. Richards wife, not surprisingly, is the Chair of the Florida
Democratic Party. The entire Florida Bar was hijacked to keep three Democrat-
appointed J ustices on the Court. This is judicial independence? This is the Bar tail
wagging the Supreme Court dog.
Is it any wonder that Republican-appointed Florida Supreme Court J ustices Canady and
Polston have opined that, The Florida Supreme Court has abdicated its duty to supervise
The Florida Bar. The Supreme Court has failed to do so because it is The Bar that is
running the Court and not the other way around. This is precisely the evil that the
McKay Commission identified and warned against: That state bars would politicize, not
just through discipline but through other means, the judicial branch of government in the
states. And the unhappy result is that the public rightly questions the independence and
impartiality of the judiciary, especially when it comes to lawyer discipline.
Indeed, a fairly recent poll of Florida lawyers revealed that many think they are
disciplined not because of what they do but because of whom they do not know in The
Bar hierarchy. A more recent poll of Florida judges found that a huge majority of these
judges believe that The Bar protects even the lawyers that they, the judges, report to The
Bar for unethical acts. So lawyers and judges believe The Florida Bar is bought and paid
for. Can one imagine what the public in this McKay Report-Free Zone think of The Bar?
The Florida Bar brays continuously about the need for judicial independence. What
The Florida Bar means by that is that it wants the judiciary dependent upon it and
independent of any salutary democratic impulse.
Recommendations for the ABA Committee on Professional Discipline
I would strongly recommend that your Committee do whatever it can to cajole, possibly
by a Resolution placed before the ABA House of Delegates, that states must or at least
should submit to an audit by the ABA of their lawyer discipline systems. It is outrageous
that The Florida Bars J ohn Berry could sit on the McKay Commission, and learn what
he learned, even to the point of officially criticizing the California State Bar, as already
noted, for its failure to institute McKay Commission reforms, while at the same time
drawing a paycheck from a state bar that is even less compliant with McKay than was
California.
Secondly, I would strongly recommend that the Committee establish a mediation service
or function that would enable a lawyer such as the undersigned, when he is being run
over by a rogue state bar disciplinary system, to go to the ABA and say, Would you
being willing to offer a paid mediator to sit down with both parties to try to get the
12
disciplinary process back on track before it is concluded? What is the worst that could
happen? The lawyer is told he is wrong? Or the Bar is told it is wrong? What would be
the harm in that? What would be avoided is a horror story such as mine that prompts me
to tell the world, truthfully, that The Florida Bar is out of sync with the ABA.
Finally, I urge the Committee to urge The Florida Bar, by whatever means are available,
to take a hard look at the McKay Reports Recommendations 1, 5, and 6 toward the end,
finally, of complying with them. It is likely too late for me to have any vestige of my
legal career restored. This is not about me. This is about others in Florida, and
elsewhere, who will come after me and who will be targeted similarly if the McKay
Commission reforms are not implemented.
I would put this to you: Who in his right mind, after going through what I did, would not
want to urge the American Bar Association, to do what it can, through its good offices, to
make sure that there not be other such victims of The Florida Bar and other state bars? If
that prophylactic benefit occurs, then my travail shall not have been for naught.
For what The Florida Bar did was turn the truthfulness I had to utter about predatory
commercial practices by the entertainment industry into the functional equivalent of a
criminal libel action. My truthful speech was criminalized. I was stripped of the ability
to practice law by means of gross substantive and procedural due process violations. It
was the functional equivalent of finding Paul Revere guilty of disturbing the peace with
his Midnight Ride.
I was warning the nation that Columbines and Sandy Hooks were on the way. They are
now here. The commercial entertainment enterprises that sell adult-rated mayhem and
pornography to our children happened to found in The Florida Bar a commonality of
purpose in destroying the man who not only exposed this mental molestation of minors
for money but also the tyrannical practices of The Florida Bar in my Tyndale House-
published biography.
J ustice Douglas, as pointed out, predicted that state bars would eventually become
goose-stepping brigades. In Florida, theyre on the march and have been since 1987. I
submit that it is up to the ABA to help stop them. The Florida Bar and the Florida
Supreme Court should not be allowed to continue to thwart both an ABA audit and the
spirit of the ABAs McKay Commission.
I thank God that your Committee has been given the charge to do this work. I shall pray
that your work and His will be done.
If more things come to mind prior to my anticipated testimony in May before the
Committee, I shall pass them on.
Respectfully, J ack Thompson
13
I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and
complete, so help me God. Signed, J ohn B. Thompson
PS: All Committee Members
5721 Riviera Drive
305-666-4366
[email protected]
February 24, 2013
Re: Addendum to Written Proffer of Live Testimony at ABA National Conference on
Professional Responsibility, May 30-31, in San Antonio, Texas
Dear Chairman Lynk:
I find in reflecting upon what I sent you and the rest of the Committee yesterday, I failed
to mention two other facts that show how thoroughly corrupted and out of step The
Florida Bar is with the state disciplinary system paradigms set forth in the ABAs McKay
Report, adopted by the House of Delegates, to-wit:
The Florida Bar Has Set Up a Lawyers Malpractice I nsurance Company One of
Whose Stated Purposes I s to Thwart Bar Discipline of I ts I nsureds
In 1987, given the increase in lawyers malpractice insurance premiums in Florida, The
Florida Bar created the Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, FLMIC.
FLMIC promotes as one of its services to its insureds the representation of any insured in
any Bar disciplinary proceeding brought against him/her. In other words, FLMIC has
publicly stated, repeatedly, that part of the coverage paid for by insurance premiums is to
provide attorneys to defeat any bar grievance brought against an FLMIC insured. Why?
Because successful bar discipline could be used to underscore and even prove the validity
of a malpractice claim arising out of the same factual and legal setting. In other words,
FLMIC has a vested financial interest in defeating a bar grievance because doing will
help protect, obviously, the financial assets of this mutual insurance company. And a
claim not paid a plaintiff keeps insurance premiums lower. FLMIC says just that.
Now, having simply stated what FLMIC itself says as to the nexus between bar
complaints and malpractice claims, take a look at who is on the FLMIC board of
directors: Ramon A. Abadin, Florida Bar Governor, and J uliet Roulhac, Florida Bar
Governor. The Chairman of FLMICs Board is a former Florida Bar President, and
another former Florida Bar President serves on the Board with the aforementioned three.
Appendix 4
2
In Florida, as you know, Bar Governors are responsible for overseeing the disciplinary
processes of The Florida Bar. Indeed, unfortunately, Governors Abadin and Roulhac also
serve on specific Grievance Committees as Designated Reviewers and as such are fully in
control of anything those Committees do. They can stop any ethics grievances dead in its
tracks.
Query: How in the world can a Bar Governor faithfully and impartially discharge his/her
duties to administer lawyer discipline and participate also at its initiating level when
he/she also serves on the board of directors of an insurance company whose publicly
stated purpose is to defeat lawyer discipline for its insureds?
Answer: He and she cannot, because each of them is being pulled in opposite directions
by competing fiduciary duties. Why is it that Bar Governors and Bar Presidents dont
know what a classic conflict of interest looks like?
Why should a permanently disbarred lawyer, of all people, have to point this out? Bar
Governors should, of all people, understand the appearance of impropriety here, summed
up fairly by suggesting that FLMIC is in effect, at least in part, an ethics protection racket
for lawyers, since the pitch to potential insureds is this: Buy our malpractice insurance
and our board of directors, comprised in part of Florida Bar Governors and former Bar
Presidents, will do our best to make sure The Bar does not discipline you. Make
yourself, in effect, an untouchable. We have proof that an untouchable ethics system
status is conferred upon FLMIC insureds.
And then here is the cherry on top of this rancid sundae: Until recently J ohn F. J ack
Harkness, the Executive Director of The Florida Bar since the time of Moses, who still
fills that post, was serving for many years on the Board of Directors of FLMIC! The
executive head of The Bar, which now says its primary function is to discipline lawyers,
was on the board of an entity committed to trying to defeat the disciplinary functions of
The Bar. Whats next? Is Manuel Noriega going to head up DrugFree.org?
Even now, disturbingly but shamelessly, J ack Harkness is still associated with FLMIC in
that he publicly, at the FLMIC web site, currently encourages Florida Bar members to
choose FLMIC as their malpractice carrier:
Florida Lawyers is one of the many benefits available to you as a member; and in this
regard, I strongly urge your consideration of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance
Company as your professional liability carrier. J ohn F. Harkness [emphases added]
[This picture of J ack, along with above quotation, provided at
FLMIC endorsement page]
3
In sum, then, The Florida Bar created FLMIC to provide not only malpractice insurance
but also included in that insurance package free (already paid for by premiums) bar
discipline protection. J ack Harkness calls this insurance a benefit of being a Bar
member. This is the functional equivalent of Florida drivers being able to purchase
traffic ticket insurance from the Fraternal Order of Police.
Lawyer self-regulation has demonstrably sullied judicial independence. The Bar has
provided insurance that buys insulation from discipline.
The Florida Supreme Court Does Not Review All Bar Disciplinary Actions
In 1949, the Florida Supreme Court integrated the bar, thereby making membership of
any lawyer in The Florida Bar mandatory for anyone desiring to practice law.
In that integration order, the High Court appropriately addressed a number of concerns
many lawyers had about the creation of a compulsory Florida Bar, one concern being that
The Bar would in effect wrest actual disciplinary functions from the judiciary. Of
course, the ABAs McKay Commission Report, issued in 1992, makes the point that in
any state, like Florida, in which bar officials elected not by the people generally but by
lawyers who actually participate in and direct lawyer discipline, then that is a state whose
lawyers are self-regulated. This is why the ABA, 43 years after the 1949 Florida
Supreme Courts Bar Integration Order, raised the very same concerns, first raised by the
Florida Supreme Court itself in its McKay Report.
And now we have yet a further proof as to how wise both the earlier Florida Supreme
Court and the McKay Commission were: Court documents, readily available in the
public domain, prove irrefutably that the Florida Supreme Court DOES NOT, as it
promised in 1949 and as is mandated by the Florida Constitution, review all disciplinary
decisions of The Florida Bar.
Disbarments of lawyers requested by The Bar are rubberstamped by the Court with no
review by the Court of the proceedings below. In other instances, within hours or a few
days of the receipt of Referee Reports by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court
approves them without review, without opinions issued, without any judicial oversight
whatsoever.
Further, one of the ways in which the Florida Supreme Court thinks it can cover the
J ustices nonfeasance in this regard is by having simply the Clerk of the Court, Tom Hall,
sign disciplinary orders, even disbarment orders. In fact, the Supreme Court, in clear
violation of Floridas Government in the Sunshine Laws (public records laws), refuses to
produce purely clerical records that would prove disciplinary case files have not been
routed to any of the J ustices. A J ustice cannot review what he/she is not given, which is
why the Court refuses to produce public records which prove a total lack of judicial
oversight.
4
Finally, irrefutable proof that the Florida Supreme Court does not review The Bars
disciplinary decisions is the sheer number of those decisions and the hours in a day and
days in a year. It is a pure math problem. We have nearly 100,000 lawyers in this state.
There are so many disciplinary actions by The Bar that the Supreme Court literally does
not have enough time, given the Supreme Courts other duties, to afford those decisions
judicial oversight.
Be that as it may, the lack of time and money resources to discharge the Courts duty
under the Bar Integration Order and the Florida Constitution is its problem. It cannot,
until it solves that problem, pretend that it is actually engaged fully in overseeing the
discipline of lawyers. So what does the Supreme Court do? It rubberstamps what The
Bar gives it, pretends to review some of the most visible cases (and not even does so in
all of those), and calls that full judicial oversight of the discipline of lawyers. It is a lie.
It is an irony that then Chief J ustice Charles Canady opined in the Liberty Counsel case
that the Florida Supreme Court has abdicated its duty to supervise The Florida Bar. He
is correct. It is Charles Canady that put his name on my disbarment order without ever
reviewing the Referees Report or any of the disciplinary record below. He ended a
lawyers career without giving it a glance or a thought.
This recklessness, this nonfeasance, this denial of basic due process and fairness by the
Florida Supreme Court is shocking.
Why does our states highest court refuse then an ABA McKay Commission audit of its
lawyer disciplinary system? Because the Florida Supreme Court and Florida Bar would
flunk such an audit. Such an audit would prove that our states disciplinary system is in
a shambles, sullied with a politicized regulatory structure that is a relic of the 19
th
century.
The Florida Bar is nothing but a guild which protects lawyers who buy the right
insurance and targets lawyers who blow the whistle on commercial pornographers
represented, in my instance, by a vide game industry law firm who has a partner on the
Board of Governors of The Florida Bar.
Your Committee, sadly, has work to do. Florida doesnt get the McKay Report. Heck,
even J ohn Berry doesnt get it, and he helped write it.
Anything I and others can do to help, let us know. Identifying rascals can be fun.
complete, so help me God. Signed, J ohn B. Thompson
PS: All Committee Members
5721 Riviera Drive
305-666-4366
[email protected]
March 4, 2013
Re: Addendum to Written Proffer of Live Testimony at ABA National Conference on
Professional Responsibility, May 30-31, in San Antonio, Texas
Dear Chairman Lynk:
Since writing you, The Florida Bar has decided to target, with a threatened bar complaint
on its own behalf, a public-spirited lawyer who owns and operates a blog in the state that
has been wonderfully successful in identifying corrupt judicial officials, including judges.
Its not even debatable that this lawyer has served the public weal. The judges are the
ones, behind the scene, who are egging on The Florida Bar to do this.
In fact, The Florida Bar fairly recently whacked with a suspension a lawyer who posted
truthful comments at this particular blog about a corrupt judge. The lawyer was
vindicated fully as to the truthfulness of his comments, yet The Bar disciplined him
nevertheless.
This particular blogging lawyer is politically liberal. I am a conservative. When it
comes whistleblowers who identify judicial corruption, then, as both this lawyer and I
have, The Florida Bar is an equal opportunity anti-First Amendment tyrant.
The Bar can get away with this politicization of its guild-like enforcement of speech
codes through discipline for the very reasons that I have pointed out in my prior letters
to you: The Florida Bars disciplinary structure is run by political Bar Governors
elected solely by their well-connected peers with no democratic impulse whatsoever.
This is precisely the corrupting structural flaw that the ABAs McKay Commission
Report identified in 1992. The Florida Bars guilt as to same is why the Florida Bar and
Supreme Court refuse an audit by the ABA of its corrupted disciplinary structure.
So, here we have yet another examplenow a stark and disturbing one when it comes to
this public-spirited Florida lawyer bloggerthat unconstitutional criminal libel is alive
Appendix 5
2
and well in Florida. The Florida Bar, as to this fellow and as to me, chose to use speech
codes, at the behest of corrupt judges and criminal commercial entities, to intimidate and
silence lawyers, even though Florida Bar Rules and our 1949 Bar Integration Order
prohibit this practice.
Lawyer discipline, in my instance, was invoked not by the public, not by a wronged
client, but rather by political and commercial interests with political and commercial ties
to influential Bar Governors.
The consequence of this politicization and corruption of bar discipline in Florida is that
when whistle blowers such as the undersigned and now this blogger are harmed, the
public is harmed because it can no longer benefit from their whistle blowing.
I was disbarred for appearing on 60 Minutes. The same Bar that did that now wants to
pull the ticket of a lawyer who has just been too effective at exposing corrupt and
corrupting judges protected by The Bar.
It is not a coincidence that The Florida Bars current President, Gwynne Young, is most
highly political Florida Bar President in its history. She is the one who led the effort to
commandeer $300,000 in Bar members dues to make an improper campaign
contribution to three Florida Supreme Court J ustices. Wait until you hear what the
Florida Supreme Court has done to cover that up.
I look forward to my testimony before your Committee in May, as what I have sent you
already is just a prelude to the shocking information you will then receive.
complete, so help me God.
Signed, J ohn B. Thompson
Copies: All Committee Members
PS: Other state bars are similarly politicizing bar discipline, which makes your
Committees hearings all the more important. In that regard as to other states, see
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/09/bloggers-under-fire-arizona-conservative-
lawyeractivist-targeted-by-left-wing-arizona-state-bar/
THE FLORIDA BAR
651 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2300 850/561-5600
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
March 14, 2013
8092 S.W. 115Th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Re: Complaint by Neil J. Gillespie against Robert W. Bauer
The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Enclosed you will find Mr. Robert W. Bauer's response to your complaint. The response sent by Mr.
Bauer indicated that a copy was being mailed to you. However based on your recent email to The Florida
bar it appears that you did not receive you copy of Mr. Bauer's response.
If you wish to file a rebuttal to the response, please do so in writing by April 1, 2013. Additionally, you
must send a copy to Mr. Bauer.
Sincerely,
Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
ACAP Hotline 866-352-0707
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert W. Bauer
Appendix 6
---------------
112&'13 GnWl Per d Neil Gillespie
--
Per Complaint of Neil Gillespie
Idm <[email protected]>
Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Reply-To: kim <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Dear Sirs/Madam,
Mr. Neil Gillespie is using my name WITHOUT my pennission in a complaint against
Robert Bauer, AttyI with the Florida State Bar.
Please be seNsed that I am satisfied with Mr. Bauer's representation of our case and
in no way want to be associated with Gillespie and this complaint.
I will also be discussing this matter with MaryAnn Crawford.
Thank you,
Kim Pruett
it'1bcdth=13c81518b4b9c54a

J A

Neil Gillespie
From: "kim" <[email protected]>
To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Bauer
Page 1 of 1
3/17/2013
Thanks Neil,
I wrote him a real nasty email! I told him he was "milking" us and to get this case moving forward or else!
Kim
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Gillespie
Sent: Oct 3, 2012 6:22 PM
To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry
Subject: Robert Bauer

Hello Kimberly,
Thanks for your call today about Robert Bauer. As you requested, I forwarded your information to Angela
Woodhull. Here is a link to Tampa legal malpractice attorney Bill Vaughan that you mentioned
http://www.florida-malpractice-attorney.com/index.php
Shortly I will be making another complaint against Robert Bauer. The designated reviewer of my last
complaint said it often takes more than one complaint for the grievance committee to reach a finding of
misconduct. Did you see my page with my complaint against Bauer? Here is a link http://www.nosue.org/bar-
complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/ And thanks for reminding me about the fee arbitration program.
I m so sorry to hear about your problems with Bauer. You are not alone. Feel free to contact me anytime,
I ll do whatever I can to assist you and your husband.
Sincerely,
Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop (Oak Run)
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
website: http://www.nosue.org/bar-complaint-of-robert-w-bauer/
blog: http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/

Neil Gillespie
To: "Angela V. Woodhull" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client
Page 1of 3
3/17/2013
Hey Angela,
We are so tired at this point, I don't know what to do. I am gonna get this Suit over with first, then sit back
and try to decide what to do about
Bauer. He definately fails to "move a case forward", I think he tries to rack up a bill.
Kim
From: "Angela V. Woodhull"
Sent: Oct 20, 2012 9:44 AM
To: kim
Cc: [email protected]

Are you putting this information out on the internet and what else may I do to assist the
for all of us?
Angela W.

--- On Sat, 10/20/12, kim <[email protected]> wrote:

From: kim <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012, 9:16 AM

Hey Neil and Angela,
Sorry have not been in touch. FINALLY had to get a new lawyer!
We have been begging Bauer since J anuary to get us into Mediation, he says
he will and then we never hear from him again. Over 2 weeks ago, I sent him a
nasty email and told him he had 10 days to get to something scheduled. I
really laid into him! He immediately called my husband and apologized and
said
he would get right to work on it! We haven't heard from him since!
We talked to another Atty last week (Mark Fox) and are switching to him on
Monday.
Bauer has not done anything with our case since J an., yet somehow, we have
racked up a 40K bill!!! We
have already paid him about 13K and I REFUSE to give him another dime.
J ust thought I would let ya'll know what is going on.
Kim
Sent: Oct 5, 2012 6:45 PM
To: kim

Okay Kim, that sounds fine. I have a couple questions if you dont mind. How did you
find Robert Bauer? Was he a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service? If
so, he is supposed to meet certain requirements, such as maintaining malpractice
insurance.
Also, who did you speak with at the Florida Bar? My notes from our phone call show
"Mr. Negon" but that name does not appear in the Bar directory, maybe I have the
wrong spelling?
I can send you a copy of my second complaint against Bauer if you like. Hopefully it
will be ready in a couple of weeks.
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: kim
To: Neil Gillespie
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:35 AM

Thanks Neil,
I will call her today.
Kim
Sent: Oct 4, 2012 10:34 AM
To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry , "Angela V. Woodhull"
Subject: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hello Kim,
Angela Woodhull can speak with you, she is in Albuquerque, New
Mexico for one month. Call on her cell phone (352) 214-4652, see
message below.
Page 2of 3
3/17/2013
Neil
From: Angela V. Woodhull
To: Neil Gillespie
Subject: Re: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Let's go for it. I'm now in Albuquerque, New Mexico for one month.
Call on my cell phone (352)214-4652.
~A

--- On Wed, 10/3/12, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]>
Subject: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 2:32 PM

Angela,
Today I received a call from Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a
former Bauer client. Kim said she and her husband William paid
Bauer $40,000 to sue their former attorney for legal
malpractice. Attorney Peter McGrath represented Kim and
William in a HOA case in Marion County, which was reported in
the Ocala Star-Banner.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20090723/ARTICLES/907231010?
p=1&tc=pg
Kim found your Bauer pleading on my website, and said Bauer
was disrespectful to her also. Kim would like to speak with you
about your experience with Bauer. Ill forward this email to Kim
if that is okay with you. Let me know.
Kim spoke with a Tampa legal malpractice attorney, Bill
Vaughan, and thinks the former Bauer clients should band
together and sue Bauer. http://www.florida-malpractice-
attorney.com/our.php
Kimberly Pruett-Barry
Telephone: 352-207-7291
[email protected]
Hope things are going okay with you. Take care.
Neil Gillespie
Page 3of 3
3/17/2013

Neil Gillespie
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:16 AM
Page 1of 3
3/17/2013
Hey Neil and Angela,
Sorry have not been in touch. FINALLY had to get a new lawyer!
We have been begging Bauer since J anuary to get us into Mediation, he says he will and then we never
hear from him again. Over 2 weeks ago, I sent him a
nasty email and told him he had 10 days to get to something scheduled. I really laid into him! He
immediately called my husband and apologized and said
he would get right to work on it! We haven't heard from him since!
We talked to another Atty last week (Mark Fox) and are switching to him on Monday.
Bauer has not done anything with our case since J an., yet somehow, we have racked up a 40K bill!!! We
have already paid him about 13K and I REFUSE to give him another dime.
J ust thought I would let ya'll know what is going on.
Kim
Sent: Oct 5, 2012 6:45 PM
To: kim

Okay Kim, that sounds fine. I have a couple questions if you dont mind. How did you
find Robert Bauer? Was he a referral from the Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service? If
so, he is supposed to meet certain requirements, such as maintaining malpractice
insurance.
Also, who did you speak with at the Florida Bar? My notes from our phone call show
"Mr. Negon" but that name does not appear in the Bar directory, maybe I have the wrong
spelling?
I can send you a copy of my second complaint against Bauer if you like. Hopefully it will
be ready in a couple of weeks.
Neil
From: kim
To: Neil Gillespie

Thanks Neil,
I will call her today.
Kim
Sent: Oct 4, 2012 10:34 AM
To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry , "Angela V. Woodhull"
Subject: Fw: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Hello Kim,
Angela Woodhull can speak with you, she is in Albuquerque, New Mexico for one month. Call on her cell
phone (352) 214-4652, see message below.
Neil
From: Angela V. Woodhull
To: Neil Gillespie
Subject: Re: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client

Let's go for it. I'm now in Albuquerque, New Mexico for one month. Call on my
cell phone (352)214-4652.
~A

--- On Wed, 10/3/12, Neil Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]>
Subject: Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former Bauer client
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 2:32 PM

Angela,
Today I received a call from Kimberly Pruett-Barry in Ocala, a former
Bauer client. Kim said she and her husband William paid Bauer $40,000
to sue their former attorney for legal malpractice. Attorney Peter McGrath
represented Kim and William in a HOA case in Marion County, which
was reported in the Ocala Star-Banner.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20090723/ARTICLES/907231010?
p=1&tc=pg
Kim found your Bauer pleading on my website, and said Bauer was
disrespectful to her also. Kim would like to speak with you about your
experience with Bauer. Ill forward this email to Kim if that is okay with
you. Let me know.
Page 2of 3
3/17/2013
Kim spoke with a Tampa legal malpractice attorney, Bill Vaughan, and
thinks the former Bauer clients should band together and sue Bauer.
http://www.florida-malpractice-attorney.com/our.php
Telephone: 352-207-7291
[email protected]
Hope things are going okay with you. Take care.
Neil Gillespie
Page 3of 3
3/17/2013

Neil Gillespie
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Bauer
Page 1of 1
3/17/2013
OH MY GOSH!! You think Bauer is telling folks that? Wouldn't put it past him.
Yep, we fired him, if you are gonna be home tomorrow afternoon, I will call ya and
tell ya all about it. Have a 10:00am appt with our new lawyer in the morning.
Kim
Sent: Nov 13, 2012 6:58 PM
To: Kimberly Pruett-Barry
Subject: Bauer

Hi Kim,
A week or so ago Anna Hodges emailed me and said a woman called her asking about Bauer. The woman
also told her I passed away, have you heard about that? That is really strange.
How are things going with Bauer? Did you fire him yet?
Neil

Neil Gillespie
From: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>
To: "kim" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Paul F Hill" <[email protected]>; "Kenneth Lawrence Marvin" <[email protected]>; "Annemarie C
Craft" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, J anuary 16, 2013 5:21 PM
Attach: Letter of Mary Bateman, Aug-03-2009.pdf
Subject: Re: FL State Bar
Page 1of 4
3/17/2013

Dear Kim,

Thank you for your email. In a letter dated J anuary 7, 2013 Bar Counsel
Annemarie Craft informed me that the Bar was moving forward with my
complaint, which is now designated "Robert W. Bauer, The Florida Bar File
No. 2013-00,540 (8B)".

Since you are still a client of Mr. Bauer, I think it would be better to
direct your questions about Mr. Bauer to the Florida Bar directly. Plus I do
not have the time, and am not feeling well.

You have my sincere sympathy for what you are going through, but it is
better to bring your complaints about Mr. Bauer directly to the Florida Bar.
Perhaps the Bars Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) could provide you substitute
counsel. But I got Bauer as a LRS referral, and that did not work out.

I am sending copies of my reply to this email to Bar Counsel Annemarie
Craft, since she has my complaint, and to Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer
Regulation, and Paul Hill, General Counsel for the Florida Bar. Hopefully
between them they can fashion a solution to your problem with Robert W.
Bauer. I ask each of them, by and through this email, to protect you as a
consumer of legal and court services.

Kim, I wish you well, and hope those persons at the Florida Bar with the
authority and responsibility to protect you will seriously listen to your
cry for help about the misconduct of Mr. Bauer. I believe Mr. Marvin in
particular has a duty under The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to act, as
well as a case I became aware of last night, Mueller v. The Florida Bar,
which holds:

"Allegation by disbarred attorney that certain complaints against him were
solicited by state bar was mere surplusage in complaint alleging malicious
prosecution; state bar is not prohibited from actively seeking complaints
against particular members of bar or members of bar in general. Mueller v.
The Florida Bar, App. 4 Dist., 390 So.2d 449 (1980)."

I also believe the Florida Bar can initiate its own complaint against an
attorney under Rule 3-7.3, see section (c), and the attached letter sent to
me Aug-03-09 from Mary Ellen Bateman of the Florida Bar, paragraph number 2:
"The bar does initiate complaints on occasion and when appropriate".

Sometime after all this gets resolved, you, me, and all the other survivors
of Mr. Bauers misconduct should get together for dinner and reminisce.

Sincerely,

Neil J . Gillespie

8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala, FL 34481

Ps. If after this email the Florida Bar does not assist you, let me know and
I will forward this matter to the extent possible in any response to my
petition for writ of certiorari, which is docketed as Petition No. 12-7747
in the Supreme Court of the United States.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-7747.htm

You can read more about the petition here
http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html

Sent: Wednesday, J anuary 16, 2013 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: FL State Bar

Lots to tell you, too much in an email, call me when you can!

Had to keep dumb butt Bauer, his lawyers would not accept my new lawyer,
threatened to take
it to the J udge!

352 207-7291

Kim

>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]>
>Sent: Dec 5, 2012 11:16 AM
>To: kim <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: FL State Bar
>
>Kim,
>
>It appears your complaint is in the "intake" stage in Tallahassee, in
>ACAP -
>Attorney Consumer Assistance Program. If ACAP finds a likely violation of
>the rules, your complaint is sent to a local grievance committee, the panel
>you mentioned. That is how my complaint went with Bauer. But the local
>grievance committee is comprised of the lawyers colleagues, perhaps his
Page 2of 4
3/17/2013
>own
>friends and cronies, who often overlook wrongdoing to help a fellow lawyer.
>
>Neil
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "kim" <[email protected]>
>To: "Neil Gillespie" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:13 PM
>Subject: Re: FL State Bar
>
>
>>Hey,
>>I did go ahead and call today and they said that the matter is under
>>investigation.
>>They also said the next step is that it will be sent back to his
>>district.
>>I guess this
>>is what happened to you, correct?
>>
>>This is when it goes before a "panel" and they decide if he did something
>>wrong, ot at least
>>this is my understanding.
>>
>>kim
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Neil Gillespie <[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Dec 4, 2012 7:06 PM
>>>To: kim <[email protected]>
>>>Subject: Re: FL State Bar
>>>
>>>Hi Kim,
>>>
>>>You should have heard something from the Bar by now. Are you trying to
>>>get
>>>money back from McGrath? What do you want the Bar to do for you?
>>>
>>>You may want to write a short letter to your Bar Counsel, just a couple
>>>of
>>>sentences, like "when can I expect to get a response to my complaint
>>>filed
>>>on such and such a date"?
>>>
>>>Sometimes the legal profession takes a letter more seriously than a phone
>>>call. If the Bar responds in writing, you will have that letter to refer
>>>too.
>>>
>>>Would you like me to mention your matter in my petition? If so I will
>>>need
>>>some information, like the RFA number.
Page 3of 4
3/17/2013
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "kim" <[email protected]>
>>>To: <[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:33 PM
>>>Subject: FL State Bar
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey Neil
>>>>
>>>>Still have not heard a word from the Bar on the complaint I made on
>>>>Peter McGrath.
>>>>
>>>>It has been months now.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't really want to bother them, but I think I will call for an
>>>>update. Of course,
>>>>they (the lawyer investigating our case) ALWAYS has to call ya back,
>>>>can
>>>>NEVER get through to them the first time.
>>>>
>>>>I will let ya know,
>>>>Kim
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Page 4of 4
3/17/2013
No: 12-7747
_______________________
IN THE
____________________
vs.
________________________
________________________
In support of MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Letter to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
re HECM reverse mortgage forclosure
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FNY95280437 March 15, 2013
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
Russell Senate Office Building
2 Russell Courtyard
RE: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Case Number 120914-000082
Bank of America Account No.: 68011002615899
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. vs. Neil J . Gillespie, et al., U.S. District Court,
Middle District, Florida Case No. 5:13-cv-58-oc-WTH-PRL, Ocala Division
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. vs. Neil J . Gillespie, et al., Case No. 13-115-CAT,
Marion County Circuit Court, Fifth J udicial Circuit, Florida
Dear Senator Warren:
Thank you
1
for working to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, an
agency that is arguably the most important part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform according
to an Editorial in the New York Times:
When Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren gave her victory speech on election night at a party
where loudspeakers blared Aint No Stoppin Us Now, she pledged to hold the big
guys accountable. Now, some bankers, their lobbyists and their Republican allies on the
Senate banking committee reportedly would like nothing better than to keep Ms. Warren
off the powerful bank panel where she could do the most harm to the status quo, and
the most good for the country....Sending Ms. Warren to the banking committee should be
a no-brainer. - NYT: Their Problem With Elizabeth Warren, November 23, 2012.
Unfortunately a senior federal judge in Florida, and his magistrate judge, will not acknowledge
either the CFPB or the Dodd-Frank Act in orders responsive to my pleadings in a contested
HECM reverse mortgage foreclosure by Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. for Bank of America.
The senior federal judge is a shareholder in Bank of America, the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges
2
,
U.S. District Court, Middle District, Ocala, FL. The interest list for J udge Hodges and Bank of
America is enclosed, as filed on PACER at Case 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Document 18-1
Filed 03/06/13 Page 3 of 29 PageID 695
My home is in foreclosure on a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, also called a HECM or a
reverse mortgage. HECM is a federal mortgage insurance program administered by HUD - the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is codified at 12 USC 1715z20,

1
A copy of this letter will be provided Monday March 18, 2013 to the Supreme Court of the
United States in support of my motion for leave to appear in forma pauperis on a petition for the
rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari, No. 12-7747 that seeks better
protection for consumers of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce.
2
J udge Hodges was also the trial judge in the cases on petition for certiorari in No. 12-7747.
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren March 15, 2013
The CFPB and The Dodd-Frank Act Page - 2
Insurance of home equity conversion mortgages for elderly homeowners. HUD is a coparty
Defendant with me and others in the above captioned lawsuits, which I removed to federal court.
My initial complaint was sent August 9, 2012 to HUD as provided by Section 4-19 of the HUD
Reverse Mortgage Handbook 7610.01, and disputed a Notice of Default and Intent to Foreclose,
on acct./loan no. 68011002615899 from RMS - Reverse Mortgage Solutions. RMS is the debt
collector for Bank of America.
Bank of America owns the subject HECM mortgage, and was identified as the party at interest
by the CFPB in a letter addressed to me that did not mention RMS. The CFPB assigned case no.
120914-000082 to my complaint. The CFPB letter is enclosed as it appears on PACER at Case
5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Document 18-1 Filed 03/06/13 Page 2 of 29 PageID 694, and
Case 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Document 5-3 Filed 02/04/13 Page 2 of 40 PageID 326.
My CFPB complaint shows the lenders and affiliated parties made a HECM reverse mortgage
J une 5, 2008 to my mother, Penelope Gillespie, who was incompetent due to Alzheimers
dementia. Mom died from dementia fifteen months later, September 16, 2009. Bank of America
and RMS claim a right to foreclose and demand immediate payment in full if the borrower dies
and the property is not the principal residence of at least one surviving borrower. But I am a
surviving borrower living in the home as my principal residence. The home, valued at $78,675,
is in a family trust. The mortgage is $109,800. The home is underwater with -$31,125 negative
equity. I am indigent and not able to refinance. I rely on Social Security disability income.
The lender and affiliated parties required me and my brother to sign the HECM note, mortgage,
and other documents, making us all borrowers. Since I am a borrower living in the home in
substantial compliance with the documents I signed, I believe this foreclosure is premature.
A ruling in the Santos
3
case rejected a definition of borrower to include only natural persons
acting in their individual capacities. A decision J anuary 4, 2013 in Bennett, et al., v.
Secretary/HUD, No. 11-5288, U.S.C.A, D.C., the Court held:
....HUD itself has the capability to provide complete relief to the
lenders and mortgagors alike....(page 1)
....HUD could accept assignment of the mortgage, pay off the
balance of the loans to the lenders, and then decline to foreclose...(page 10)
But none of that mattered to J udge Hodges in Ocala District Court, and he refused to even
mention those cases in his order remaining the case back to state court. In doing so J udge
Hodges departed from the following cases and constitutional protections.

3
Isabel Santos, individually and as trustee and beneficiary of the Yolanda Maria Santos Trust, et
al. v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, et al, No. 12-3296-SC, U.S District Court, Northern District
of California. Page 11, Order, October 12, 2012 (Doc. 25) Denying Defendants Motion (1) For
J udgment on the Pleadings and (2) To Dissolve or Modify Preliminary Injunction
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal
government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due
Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central
A case arises under federal law if federal law creates the cause of action, or if a substantial
disputed issue of federal law is a necessary element of a state law claim. Pacheco de Perez v.
AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1373 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v.
Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)). Here, my case arises
under the federal HECM statute 12 USC 1715z20 because a substantial disputed issue of
federal law is a necessary element of a state law claim, my rights under the HECM.
My HUD/CFPB complaint shows the HECM reverse mortgage was essentially sold to us as an
investment that the heirs could rely upon, which I cited in a motion to dismiss (Doc. 5, 13):
13. The subject HECM reverse mortgage charged high fees and stripped the family of
home equity. The HECM reverse mortgage counseling session was a sham, and did not
serve its intended purpose. The HECM reverse mortgage financial projections were
beyond optimistic, they were fraudulent. The FHA's Monthly Adjustable HECM Loan
Estimated Amortization Schedule for Penelope Gillespie and Neil Gillespie shows at year
four (4) an ending loan balance of $118,550, a home value of $163,780, and equity of
$45,230. The value of the home is now $78,675; the loan balance is $109,345; the current
deficit is -($30,670); equity difference is -($75,900). The Plaintiff is now seeking to
compound the Gillespie Familys loss of $75,900 with a demand in the Complaint,
paragraph 8, for interest from September 16, 2009, late charges, advancements, and all
costs of collection including, but not limited to, title search expense for ascertaining
necessary parties to this action and reasonable attorneys fees.
The HUD/CFPB complaint shows multiple violations of 12 USC 1715z20, including:
Failure to comply with 12 USC 1715z20(d) Eligibility requirements.
(2)(B) has received adequate counseling, as provided in subsection (f), by an independent
third party that is not, either directly or indirectly, associated with or compensated by a
party involved in
(i) originating or servicing the mortgage;
(ii) funding the loan underlying the mortgage; or
(iii) the sale of annuities, investments, long-term care insurance, or any other type
of financial or insurance product;
Consumer Credit Counseling Services, Money Management International Incorporated
(CCCS/MMI) was the HUD-approved housing counseling agency for this loan. According to
Wikipedia, in its 2007 Annual Report, MMI identified Bank of America as a major contributor.
Therefore the counseling was not adequate counseling by a third party (other than the lender)
because this HECM was compromised from the beginning by Bank of America.
My HUD/CFPB complaint also shows on page 12:
A voice recording of the telephonic counseling session was made in .wav format. A CD
copy is enclosed. All calls made to home office telephone extension (352) 854-7807 are
recorded for quality assurance purposes pursuant to Florida Statutes chapter 934, section
934.02(4)(a)(1) and the holding of Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. J efferson-Pilot Life
Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). This was to keep an accurate record of Ms.
Gillespies medically-related calls from doctors, and as a disability accommodation for
Neil Gillespie.
Some of the information provided to Penelope and Neil Gillespie April 22, 2008 by
Susan Gray/CCCS/MMI during this counseling session was not accurate. For example,
Ms. Gray said (at 26 minutes, 21 seconds in the recording) that in year 10 the balance on
the loan would be $150,000, and the home value would be $207,000, resulting in equity
of $57,000. However today, four years into the reverse mortgage, the home value is
$85,564, resulting in an equity deficit of -$22,492 ($85,564 value - $108,056 RMA
demand J un-08-12).
At the end of the call, Ms. Gray said Your home should maintain positive equity for a
long time. (at 33 minutes, 50 seconds in the recording). Clearly this was inaccurate
information. Ms. Gray did not state that the property could decline in value. When Neil
Gillespie asked about the buyers margin interest rate, Ms. Gray was unable to answer,
and said and Ill be honest Neil, I dont understand the mathematical reasoning either
other than it has something to do with the floor that was used when they made up these
factor tables. When Neil Gillespie asked what floor meant, Ms. Gray did not know. (at
41 minutes, 30 seconds).
U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings wrote February 25, 2011 to Inspector General Steve A.
Linick of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) asking that he initiate an investigation into
widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys and law firms hired to process foreclosures
as part of the "Retained Attorney Network" established by Fannie Mae. Homeowners face a
gauntlet of abusive practices if it becomes necessary to defend a HECM foreclosure, such as my
experience with McCalla Raymer, LLC in the above captioned cases.
McCalla Raymer, LLC was one firm Rep. Cummings mentioned by name:
Freddie Mac.
Rep. Cummings six-page letter is enclosed. Unfortunately U.S. Senator Bill Nelson will not
respond to matters involving The Florida Bar, lawyers or court matters. However Sen. Nelson
did facilitate correspondence with the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which I can
provide. Otherwise Sen. Nelson has been very good responding to other constituent matters.
I am not requesting assistance from your office, and have provided this information in the public
interest. Your staff assistant Audel said you may be able to look at this on a national context.
In my view a homeowner in a disputed HECM foreclosure with RMS for Bank of America
should have a judge decide the case who is not a shareholder of Bank of America. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J . Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
Enclosures
Case 5:13-cv-00058-WTH-PRL Document 18-1 Filed 03/06/13 Page 2 of 29 PageID 694
RE: PA Request #CFPB-2013-100-P
March 12, 2013
Mr. Neil Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
This letter is in final response to your Privacy Act (PA) request dated February 26, 2013. Your
request sought a copy of CFPB case number 120914-000082.
A search of the Office of Consumer Response for documents responsive to your request
produced a total of 62 pages. We reviewed those documents and determined that 59 pages of the
records are released in full and 3 pages are withheld in full pursuant to Exemption (d)(5) of the
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Privacy Act Exemption (d)(5) permits the government to withhold all documents or
information, which are compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding. This
extends to any records compiled in anticipation of civil proceedings, whether prepared by
attorneys or lay investigators.
For questions concerning our response, please feel free to contact CFPBs FOIA Service Center
by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 1-855-444-FOIA (3642).
Sincerely,
Martin Michalosky
FOIA Manager
Operations Division
DARRn.L r: ISSA, CALIFORNIA
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS U.IJAH E CUMMINGS, MARYLAND
CHAIHMAN RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
DAN BURTON, INDIANA EDOLPHUS TOWNS, NFW YORK
JOHN L MICA, FLORIDA CAROLYN B. MALONEY, NEW YORK
(!Congress of tbe Wntteb
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, PFNNSYI VANI!\ H CANOR HOLMES NORTON,
M ICHACL R TURNER, OHIO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PA TRICK McHENRY, NORTH CAFWLlNA DENNIS J KUCINICH, OHIO
JIM JORDAN, OHIO JOHN F. TIERNEY, MASSACHUSETTS 1l,oltgr of l\rpregentatiueg
JASON CHAFFETZ, UTAH WM LACY CLAY, MISSOURI
CONNIE MACK, FLORIDA STEPHEN F. LYNCH. MASSACHUSETTS
TIM WALBERG, MICHIGAN
COMMITIEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JIM COOPER. ll:NNESSEE
JAMES LANKFORD, OKLAHOMA GERALD E. CONNOLLY, VIRGINIA
JUSTIN AMASH, MICHIGAN MIKE QUIGLEY, ILLINOIS
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, NEW YORK 2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
DANNY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS
PAUL A GOSAR, D D.S., ARIZONA BRUCE L. BRALEY, IOWA
RAUL R. LABFlADOR. IDAHO PEHR WELCH, VERMONT
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143
PATRICK MEEHAN, PENNSYl VANIA JOHN A. YARMUTH, KENTUCKY
sc:on Drs,JARLAIS, M.D , fFNNESSH CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, CONNECTICUT
(;'O?):'2b ',0/4
,fOE WALSH, ILLINOIS JACKIE SPEIEH, CALIFORNIA
f ,\( 'dMII I l,'O?) ??'i 397.1
TRFY GOWDY, SOUTH CAROliNA
MIN' )HI; ( 1?02, 1
DENNIS A. ROSS, FLORIDA
FRANK C. GUINTA, NEW HAMPSHIHE
BLAKE FI\RFNTHOI 0, TEXAS
MIKE KELLY, PENNSYLVANIA
LAwnENCl J UHADY
STAFF DIRf:.CTOH
February 25,2011
The I-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Inspector General
Federal Housing Finance Agency
1625 Eye Street, NW
Dear Mr. Inspector General:
I am writing to request that you initiate an investigation into widespread allegations of
abuse by private attorneys and law tirins hired to process foreclosllres as part of the "Retained
Attorney Network" established by Fannie Mae. I also request that you examine allegations of
abusive behavior on the part of default managenlent firms engaged by both mortgage servicers
managing Fannie Mae-backed loans and attorneys and firms that are part of the Retained
Attorney Network. Finally, I request that you examine efforts by Fannie Mae and the Federal
I-Iousing Finance Agency (FHF'A) to investigate these allegations and implement corrective
action.
Allegations of Abuse in the Retained Attorney Network
In August 2008, Fannie Mae created "a new nlandatory network of retained attorneys to
handle all foreclosure and bankruptcy matters" relating to Fannie Mae mortgage loans, whether
held in portfolio or mortgage-backed securities. Fannie Mae required that only these retained
attorneys represent Fannie Mae 1110rtgage servicers, and it established the maximum allowable
reinlbursable fees for foreclosure-related work. I In December 2010, Fannie Mae Executive Vice
President Terence Edwards announced that the Retained Attorney Network would be expanded
from 31 to 50 states.
2
I Fannie Mae, Netv Foreclosure and BankruptL)l Attorney Netvvork and Attorney's Fees
and ('osts (Announcement 08-19) (Aug. 6, 2008) (online at https://www.efanniemae.com
/st/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2008/0819.pdt) (requiring also that '''requests for approval of excess
fees by Fannie Mae must be submitted via email''!).
2 Testilnony of l'erence Edwards, Executive Vice President, Credit Portfolio
Managelnent, Fannie Mae, before the u.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs (Dec. 1,2010) (online at www.fannielnae.coln/medialpdf/Edwards_
SenateBankingComnlittee_12-1-10. pdt).
'The Honorable Steve A. Linick
Page 2
Recent reports indicate that nlany of the private attorneys, law firms, and other entities
participating in the Retained Attorney Network have been accused of practices that are fraught
with flaws, errors, conflicts of interest, and fraud, and these allegations have prompted numerous
state and federal investigations.
For example, on August 10, 20 la, the Florida State Attorney General announced an
investigation into unfair and deceptive practices by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., the
l.Jaw Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., and Shapiro & Fishnlan, L.L.P. The allegations
against the tirlns include creating and filing with Florida courts improper documentation to speed
foreclosures and establishing affiliated companies outside the United States to prepare false
documents.
3
In announcing this investigation, the Attorney General stated:
On nunlerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to
the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judglnents against homeowners.
Thousands of final judglnents of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may
have been the result of allegedly inlproper actions of the law firlns under
4
InvestIgatIon.
Fornler enlployees of the Stern law firn1 also reportedly alleged that the firm engaged in
"robo-signing," a practice in which employees signed hundreds of foreclosure affidavits each
day, falsely swearing to have personal knowledge of the underlying documents. One employee
testified that the firln' s chief operating officer "signed as Inany as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a
day without reading a single word."s The elnployees also reported that the firln backdated and
altered documents, and that it took steps to cover its 111isconduct by changing the dates on
hundreds of docUlnents.
6
Last November, Fannie Mae issued a public notice stating that it had "terminated its
relationship with the Law Offices of David J. Stern" and inforlning servicers that they "may not
refer any future Fannie Mae nlatters to the Stern finn.,,7
the U.S. Trustee Progranl (UST'P) of the Department of Justice is
investigating another firnl in the J{etained Attorney Network, the firln of Steven J. Baum, P.C. of
A111herst, Ne\v York, for tiling foreclosure dOClunents that appear to be false or
3 Attorney General of Florida, Press Release: Floril1a Lalv Firms Subpoenaed Over
F'oreclosure [Jractices (Aug. 10, 2010) (online at \vww.nlytloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsfi
newsreleases/2BAC 1AF2A61 BBA398525777B0051 BB30).
4/
e
/.
5 1'he l?ise anel J?all qf'o Associated Press (Feb. 6, 2011).
6 Questions Risin<.g ()ver F'annie anlll;rel/llie 's ()vers(ght New York
rrilnes (Oct. 19,2010); The Foreclosure New York 'Tilnes (Mar. 20,2008).
7Fannie Mae, L)ervicing Notice: ]'erlnination lvilh the Stern Lavv Firm
(Nov. 1 20 10) (online at w\vw.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/
pdf/20 1O/ntce 11101 a.pdf).
J-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Page 3
attel1lpting to foreclose on borrowers after rejecting their attelnpts to 111ake on-tinle
and failing to prove ownership of mortgages as it seized homes. The firm has also been accused
of illegally charging for foreclosure-settlement conferences, overcharging on foreclosure fees,
and racketeering.
8
Another firnl in the Retained Attorney Network, McCalla Raymer, L.L.C., is a defendant
in a federal lawsuit in which the plaintit1s allege that it engaged in fraud, racketeering, and the
manufacture of fraudulent foreclosure documents. Reportedly, this firnl established operations
in Florida under the nalne Stone, McGehee & Silver and hired ten forlner Stern law firm
elnployees.
9
The firm Stone, McGehee and Silver, LLC, dba McCalla Raymer currently appears
as a "Designated Counsel/Trustee" in Florida for Freddie Mac.
ID
Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS), a $2.8 billion company headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida-and the largest provider of default loan services in the nation-is also
under investigation by the Florida Attorney General for producing apparently forged or
fabricated dOCUl1lents in foreclosure actions. 11 LPS is also a defendant in a federal suit alleging
an illegal fee-sharing schelne. Filed in federal bankruptcy court in Mississippi, the suit alleges
that LPS and another company, Pronlmis Solutions I-Iolding COlnpany, illegally required
attorneys in their networks to turn over a portion of their fees for foreclosure services, and that
another large law firnl, Johnson & Freedman, I-J.L.C., joined in this schenle. The Chapter 13
'rrustee [or the Northern District of Mississippi, a unit of the DepartInent of Justice, has joined as
a plaintiff. 12
A special investigation by Reulers last Decelnber reported that LPS and its affiliated
cOlllpanies also allegedly deployed low-skilled, non-lawyers to prepare foreclosure documents,
created invalid Inortgage assignl1lents to facilitate foreclosures, and rewarded attorneys for speed
rather than accuracy in filing court pleadings. Reuters reported:
8 See Federal Honle [.Joan Mortgage Corp. v. Raia, SP 002253/10, District Court of
Nassau County, New York (Henlpstead); Campbell v. Baunl, 10-cv-3800, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of New York Menashe v. Steven J. Baum P.C., 10-cv-5155, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District ofNe\v York (Central Islip); and Saum v. Lask, 2010- 012048,
New York Suprenle Court, County (Buffalo).
9 Novice J:;7orida Lcnv)Jers l.)llSIJicion in Foreclosure A1ess, Palm Beach Post (Jan.
13, 2011 ) (online at www.palnlbeachpost.com/nl0ney/real-estate/novice-florida-lawyers-draw
suspicion-in-foreclosure-nless-1146402.htnl1).
10 Freddie Mac, (]uicle Exhibit 79: Designate(/ ("olinselIT'rustee (Florida) (revised 2/8/11)
(online at wvvw. freddienlac.coln/service/nlsp/exh79_ n.html).
II ()ftice of the Attorney General of Case Nunlber L10-3-1 094 (online at
http://nlyfloridalegal.conl/_85256309005085AB. nsf/0/98099A9003203OBE8525771300426A
68?C)pen&I-lighlight==0,lps).
12 'Thorne v. Pronlnlis Solutions I-Iolding Corp. et aI., Second Amended Class Action
COlnplaint, 10-01172 (BR Oct. 10,2010).
l"'he I-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Page 4
The law firiTIS are on a stopwatch. [An LPS spokesman] COnfirlTIed that the LPS Desktop
systelTI automatically tinles how long each firm takes to complete a task. It assigns firnls
that turn out work the fastest a "green" rating; slower ones "yellow" and "red" for those
that take the longest. Court records show that green ratings go to firiTIS that jump on
offered assignlnents from their LPS computer screens and almost instantly turn out ready
to-file court pleadings, often using teanlS of low-skilled clerical workers with little
oversight fro111 the lawyers. 13
Although Fannie Mae terll1inated its relationship with the Stern law firm last November,
it does not appear to have terminated its relationships with any of the other firms described
above.
14
for Investigation
T'hese are serious allegations that nlay have affected thousands of homeowners. For these
reasons, I request that your office initiate a cOlnprehensive investigation into allegations of abuse
by attorneys and law firms participating in the Retained Attorney Network, as well as servicers
and default loan service providers alleged to have participated in these abuses.
It is Illy understanding that the ll1ission of your oflice is to "promote the economy,
etliciency, and effectiveness of the FHFA's progranls; to assist FHFA in the perforn1ance of its
111ission; to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in FHFA' s and to seek
sanctions and prosecutions against those who are responsible for such fraud, waste, and abuse.,,15
In 2008, FHFA replaced the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and became the
regulator and conservator for Fannie Mae. As such, the agency's duties include overseeing the
"prudential operations" of Fannie Mae and its contractors and ensuring that their activities and
operations "are consistent with the public
With this background, I request that you address the following issues with respect to
attorneys and law firnls participating in the Retained Attorney Network program and with
respect to other entities engaged by both mortgage servicers Inanaging Fannie Mae-backed loans
and attorneys and finns that are part of the Retained Attorney Network:
1. '"1"'0 what extent have hon1eo\vners lost their hon1es to inlproper, illegal, or otherwise
invalid foreclosures as a result of the types of abuses described above?
13 Jd.
14 Fannie Mae, I?etainecl /ll1orney List (effective February 10,2011) (online at
https: IIw\vw. efanni enlae. colnlsf/techno logyIservi nvreportlanl n/pdfl retai nedattorneylist. pdf).
15 Website of the Federal I-lousing Finance Adn1inistration Office of Inspector General
(accessed on Feb. 3,2011) (online at Www.fllfaoig.gov/).
16 Section 1313(a)( 1 I-Iousing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (P.L. 110
289).
'rhe I-Ionorable Steve A. Linick
Page 5
2. To what extent have homeowners been charged inlproper, illegal, or otherwise invalid
fees during the foreclosure process?
3. 1"0 what extent are attorneys, law iirlTIS, and other entities engaged in fee-splitting,
kickbacks, or other silnilar schenles?
4. What is the total anlount in 'excess fees" that has been requested from Fannie Mae by
attorneys and law firlns? Of this amount, how much has been reilnbursed, and how nluch
has been deterlnined to be inappropriate or unwarranted?
5. I-lave FJ-IFA or Fannie Mae conducted investigations into allegations of abuse by
attorneys, law firlTIS, or other entities, and if so, \vhat are the results? Were these
allegations considered before the recent expansion of the Retained Attorney Network to
all 50 states?
6. What specific inforlnation has been collected regarding allegations against the following
firnls and their affiliates?
a. Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.
b. l.law ()ftices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
c. Shapiro & Fishn1an'l l.l.L.P.
d. Steven J. Baunl, P.C.
e. McCalla Raymer, L.L.C.
f. Johnson & Freednlan, L.L.C.
g. Prolnmis Solutions IIolding COlnpany
h. Lender Processing Services, Inc. and LPS Default Solutions, L.L.C.
7. t-Iave there been claims alleging that other attorneys or law firms participating in the
Retained Attorney Network progranl or any default nlanagement firms Inanaging the
foreclosure of Fannie Mae-backed loans have engaged in similar conduct that violates the
rights of borrowers or investors, federal or state foreclosure Initigation prograln
guidelines, federal or state la\v, federal or state judicial requirements, state bar ethics
requirelnents, or other regulations, rules, guidelines, or laws?
8. 'fo what extent have the alleged abuses described above underlnined loss and foreclosure
nlitigation efforts and outcoll1es? What responsibilities do loan servicers have in
1110nitoring and overseeing the activities of attorneys and other third party companies?
What are the levels of cure rate and loss Initigation activities among retained attorneys?
'rhe Honorable Steve A. Ljnick
Page 6
If you have any questions about this request, please have a member of your staff contact
Lucinda LJessley of the conlmittee staff at 202-225-4290.
'r'hank you for your consideration, and please feel free to contact me or my staff with any
questions.
Sincerely,
cc: The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairnlan

Petition For Rehearing No. 12-7747

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For Rehearing No. 12-7747

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For Rehearing No. 12-7747

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

You might also like