Civil and or ARDC Complaint against Williams (Legal malpractice, discovery abuse) OUTLINE AND OVERVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT: COUNT 1: SUPPRESSION OF DOCUMENTS COUNT 2: COLLABORATION WITH OPPOSING ATTORNEY TO SABOTAGE PLAINTIFF'S CASE AGAINST DEFENDENTS A) THE EXAMPLE OF TILSCHNER V SPANGLER B) THE EXAMPLE OF BRAD BULKE C) THE EXAMPLE OF SAUL FERRIS D) THE EXAMPLE OF BANKRUPTCY E) THE EXAMPLE OF THE BAUDINS F) THE EXAMPLE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY ANSWERS: WHAT STANDARDS OF CARE WERE BREACHED BY POPOVICH AND WHEN DID DULBERG FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THEM? G) OTHER ACTIONS BY WILLIAMS WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON COULD CLAIM BENEFIT THE DEFENDANTS AND SABOTAGE PLAINTIFF'S CASE AGAINST DEFENDANTS BODY OF COMPLAINT: COUNT 1: SUPPRESSION OF DOCUMENTS A simple comparison of the documents in the possession of Williams before May 29, 2019 with the documents that were released to opposing counsel on May 30, 2019 as "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf" reveals that Williams did not turn over at least 100 documents in her possession to opposing counsel without informing her client Dulberg. On November 4, 2019 Williams claimed to the court to have turned over "pretty much all documents" in her possession . On July 9, 2020, about 20 days before Williams resigned as Dulberg's attorney, Williams turned over more than 6000 pages of documents to opposing counsel shortly before she resigned as Dulberg's attorney. She has never explained why the documents in her possession were not turned over with the first documents given to opposing counsel on May 30, 2019. RELEVANT FACTS On or around November 27, 2018 Williams and Clinton received a thumb drive from Thomas Gooch that contained 6 main folders. 4 of the folders contained documents from 17LA377. 2 of the folders contained documents that needed to be disclosed to opposing counsel. The 2 folders are called "Dulberg UNDERLYING CASE DOCS" and "Dulberg Paul Dulberg Files From Client". When preparing documents to turn over to opposing counsel on May 30, 2019 Williams used only 1 of the 2 relevant folders on the Gooch thumb drive. Williams combined only one folder from the Gooch thumb drive called "Dulberg UNDERLYING CASE DOCS" with 18 pdf documents she received directly from Dulberg as email attachments to make the document called "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf". Williams did not inform Dulberg that one of the main folders of documents given to her by Gooch called "Dulberg Paul Dulberg Files From Client" was not included with the documents in "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf". Williams did not inform Dulberg that not all of the pdf documents she received as email attachments were included in "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf". The email documents which were in Williams' possession but were not included in "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf" and the subject each document covers are as follows: Hans Mast2-14 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-15 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-16 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-17 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-18 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-19 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-21 ........ with Bulke on lean buyout and picking up case file Hans Mast2-24 ........ with Bulke on lean buyout Hans Mast2-29 ........ with Bulke on lean buyout Hans Mast2-32 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-33 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-34 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-35 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-36 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-37 ........ with Bulke about anticipated Randall Bauding phone call Hans Mast2-38 ........ with Bulke about anticipated Randall Bauding phone call Hans Mast2-39 ........ with Bulke about case being not winnable and signing release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-40 ........ with Bulke about case being not winnable and signing release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-41 ........ with Bulke about case being not winnable and signing release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-42 ........ email empty of content message Hans Mast2-43 ........ with Bulke long message about why Dulberg rejects Bulkes advice Hans Mast2-44 ........ With Bulke, Bulke is trying to get him to sign a release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-45 ........ With Bulke, Bulke is trying to get him to sign a release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-46 ........ With Bulke, Bulke is trying to get him to sign a release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-47 ........ With Bulke, Bulke is trying to get him to sign a release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-48 ........ with Bulke long message about why Dulberg rejects Bulkes advice Hans Mast2-49 ........ with Bulke long message about why Dulberg rejects Bulkes advice Hans Mast2-50 ........ with Bulke on bankruptcy questions Hans Mast2-51 ........ with Bulke on bankruptcy questions Hans Mast2-52 ........ with Bulke on bankruptcy and Gagnon's insurance Hans Mast2-53 ........ email from DUlberg to Dulberg with message for Bulke on bankruptcy Hans Mast2-54 ........ with Bulke on bankrupty and pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-55 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-56 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-57 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-58 ........ with Bulke on signing settlement check and deposit Hans Mast2-59 ........ with Bulke on settlement conference cancelled Hans Mast2-60 ........ about April 9 pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-61 ........ about April 9 pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-62 ........ about April 9 pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-63 ........ all communication with Bulke on lean buyout and picking up the case file Hans Mast2-65 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and a box from Ferris Hans Mast2-69 ....... with Stretch on bankruptcy Hans Mast2-73 ....... with Ferris on declining case Hans Mast2-78 ....... with Ferris on declining case Hans Mast2-149 ....... with Stretch on medical lean expiring Hans Mast2-152 ....... with Stretch on bankruptcy Hans Mast2-153 ....... with Mast, angry Hans Mast2-169 ....... SSDI and rosencrance Hans Mast2-170 ....... SSDI and rosencrance Hans Mast2-252 ....... SSDI Hans Mast2-254 ....... SSDI Hans Mast2-255 ....... SSDI Hans Mast2-257 ....... SSDI Hans Mast2-259 ....... SSDI Hans Mast2-260 ....... SSDI Hans Mast2-262 ....... SSDI Hans Mast2-282 ....... Missing emails Missing Emails.pdf ... Missing emails Baudin Baudin1 Baudin2 Baudin3 Baudin4 Baudin5 Baudin6 Baudin7 SSDI SSDI1 SSDI2 SSDI3 SSDI4 The subject matter of other documents that Williams suppressed on May 30, 2019 are as follows: TILSCHNER V SPANGLER SSDI MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS, SCHEDULING BULKE BUSINESS CARDS BULKE FAX AND CHECK LETTER AND REPLY TO WALGREENS CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS DULBERG NOTES ON NEEDING TIMESTAMP FROM WALGREENS CUSTODIAN CENTEGRA MEDICAL RECORDS CUSTODIAN ABOUT SECURITY CAMERAS FERRIS AND OTHER LETTERS OF DECLINATION (3 documents suppressed from 2 different sources) HAND WRITTEN NOTES ON CASE DEPOSITIONS WITH HAND WRITTEN NOTES BAUDIN FEE AGREEMENT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST GAGNON AND MCGUIRES DEB FISCHER BILL TO POPOVICH DEB FISCHER LETTER A certified slip copy of Tilschner v Spangler sent as an email attachment to Williams from Dulberg on April 18, 2019 was not included in "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf". On the Gooch thumb drive there is a main folder called "Dulberg UNDERLYING CASE DOCS" which contains another folder called "Files From Baudin's Office". Inside "Files From Baudin's Office" is another folder called "Paul Dulberg - BK Docs" and this folder contains 10 documents. On May 29, 2019 Williams suppressed all but 3 bankruptcy documents given to her on the Gooch thumb-drive from the document disclosure. Williams also renamed 18 documents related to 17LA377 and which were not at all relevant to the request for production of documents to which she was responding and inexplicably placed them in "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf". On May 30, 2019 Williams gave the file "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf" to opposing counsel. It consisted of 2598 pages. Williams misled Dulberg into believing that all relevant documents that she received from both the Gooch thumb drive and from Dulberg were contained in the file "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf" and were given to opposing counsel on May 30, 2019 with the only exception being documents protected by attorney-client privilege. On November 4, 2019 in court transcript the following exchange took place: MR. FLYNN: So I think they are amending the discovery answers and possibly producing more documents. I'm not sure. THE COURT: Is that correct, counsel, not putting you on the spot, but is that an accurate representation? MS. WILLIAMS: Right. So I think we have produced pretty much everything we have, but I can talk to counsel about the documents. On June 19 2020 Flynn sent an email to Williams stating: "Julia: I just received your notice of attorney lien. Will you still be taking the dep next week? My experience with receiving liens at this stage of litigation(in a high percentage of cases) is that a withdrawal shortly follows. Hopefully not the case here, but just making sure we are still on for Mast’s dep." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg -2) On July 9, 2020 at 11:42 AM Williams sent an email to Flynn stating: "Attached are more documents. As I stated on the phone, many are duplicative of what has already been produced but some are not. Because they came from a difference source, I could not determine what had been produced previously and what had not, thus, to be safe, I am producing everything. The documents should be searchable. The documents are in four files as follows: 1. 2646-2649 2. 2650-7892 3. 7893-8551 4. 8552-8708 I may need to send them in separate emails due to the size." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich et al Documents-2, Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich et al Documents, Clinton Subpoena Responsive to court order: FILE NAME) On July 9, 2020 at 11:44 AM Williams sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Dear Paul, More documents were sent to George Flynn today to ensure that Gooch’s entire file on the underlying case was sent as well as communications from your subsequent counsel in the underlying case. There are two emails. This is the first with three files attached." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich et al Documents) Williams was in possession of the Gooch thumb drive since around November 28, 2018 which is about 6 months before she first turned over 2598 pages of documents to opposing counsel on May 30, 2019. Williams was in possession of 3 different forms of Dulberg's complete and well-ordered email communications well before May 30, 2019 (one on the Gooch thumb-drive in the folder "Dulberg UNDERLYING CASE DOCUMENTS", one on the Gooch thumb drive in the folder "Dulberg Paul Dulberg Files Sent from Client" and one sent to Williams from Dulberg as an email attachment). Williams received a fourth complete copy of emails in a format which was different from the first three sources but contained the same email documents in a folder called "Lawyers Emails by Date", sent to Williams as an email attachment in a folder called "To_Julia" on July 8, 2019. On July 9, 2020 Williams turned over most all the documents for the first time that Williams had been suppressing since May 30, 2019 to opposing counsel. Williams suppressed all contents of the main folder "Dulberg Paul Dulberg Files from Client" on the Gooch thumb-drive from the May 30, 2019 document disclosure without telling Dulberg what she did, and 20 days before Williams resigned as Dulberg's attorney she needed to sneak them back into the document disclosure without her client noticing. The excuse Williams gave Dulberg for sneaking them back into the documents turned over to opposing counsel is that she needed to "ensure that Gooch’s entire file on the underlying case was sent" and she needed to ensure that "communications from your subsequent counsel in the underlying case" were also sent to Flynn. Williams does not explain why "Gooch’s entire file" which she had in her possession since November, 2018 was being turned over on July 9, 2020 just 20 days before she resigned as Dulberg's attorney. Williams does not explain why "communications from your subsequent counsel in the underlying case" were being turned over on July 9, 2020 just 20 days before she resigned as Dulberg's attorney considering she was in possession of three complete and well-ordered versions well before May 30, 2019, and it was Williams who personally removed over 70 email documents from the May 30, 2019 document disclosure including around 40 from Brad Bulke alone, Dulberg's "subsequent counsel" in his underlying case and 8 email documents from the Baudins, also Dulberg's "subsequent counsel" in the underlying case. If Williams did not suppress the email documents on May 30, 2019 Williams would not have had to disclose the same documents on July 9, 2020 that she earlier suppressed. On Jul 10, 2020, at 10:46 AM Williams sent an email to Flynn stating: "Dear George, I believe there may have been three, but simply because the first email took forever to send as the documents attached were so large. The first contained all four of the files. The second contained three files and the third contained one file. There are only four files total—so the emails are duplicative as originally I did not believe the first email would send. Thus, you should have these four files: 1. Dulberg Stamped 2646-2649 2. Dulberg 2650-7892 3. Dulberg 7893-8551 4. Dulberg 8552-8708. Please let me know if you did not receive all of the documents." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich et al Documents-2) The document disclosure on July 9, 2020 contained more than 6000 pages of documents which is more than double the amount of all document pages Williams disclosed to the opposing counsel before that date. It consisted of both main folders on the Gooch thumb drive including the folder which was omitted from the May 29, 2019 disclosure. It still did not contain all the documents Dulberg sent to Williams as email attachments, for example Tilschner v Spangler was never turned over to opposing counsel. On July 27, 2020 at 2:24 PM Ed Clinton sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Dear Paul, Please see the attached letter. Best Regards" In the letter Clinton and Williams resigned as Dulberg's attorneys. (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich 2017 L 377) Communication between Flynn and Williams shows that Williams performed actions on June 19, 2020 which led Flynn to believe there was a high probability Williams would resign as Dulberg's attorney and Williams actually did resign as Dulberg's attorney on July 27, 2020. She released over 6000 pages of documents to Flynn on July 9, 2020, which is about 20 days after Flynn was led to believe there was a strong possibility she would be resigning shortly and less than 20 days before she actually did resign. Williams released over 6000 pages of documents to the opposing party over 9 months after Williams stated in the November 4, 2019 court transcript: "So I think we have produced pretty much everything we have, but I can talk to counsel about the documents" and over 13 months after Williams released 2598 pages of documents to the opposing counsel on May 30, 2019. COUNT 2: COLLABORATION WITH OPPOSING ATTORNEY TO BENEFIT THE DEFENDANTS AND SABOTAGE PLAINTIFF'S CASE A) THE EXAMPLE OF TILSCHNER V SPANGLER Detailed instructions were given by Dulberg to Williams on at least 6 different occasions on Tilschner v Spangler and on a meeting which took place on November 20, 2013 between Dulberg and Mast. She was sent a certified slip copy of Tilschner v Spangler as a set of 3 attachments that were named "IndependantContractor-CaseLaw1_Mast.pdf" and "IndependantContractor-CaseLaw2_Mast.pdf" and "IndependantContractor-CaseLaw3_Mast.pdf" by Dulberg which Mast gave Dulberg. She separated the certified slip copy of Tilschner v Spangler from the other two attachments and renamed all three downloaded files. The following documents describing the importance of Tilschner v Spangler were given to Williams by Dulberg: On October 10, 2018, two days before their first meeting, the file "second_amended_complaint.txt" was sent to Williams in a folder called "Duberg_complaint". The document "second_amended_complaint.txt" states: "MAST told DULBERG at a meeting in which DULBERG was trying to decide whether to accept the MCGUIRE's offer of $5,000 that because the restatement of torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois, DULBERG had no case against the MCGUIRES and that the MCGUIRES did not have to offer any settlement at all. DULBERG asked MAST to cite case law that shows why the MCGUIRES were not at least partially liable for DULBERG'S injury, and MAST cited Tilschner v Spangler, a case which confirms that restatement of torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois. But note the claim of MCGUIRE'S liability given above relies on restatement of torts 343 or a general negligence claim. It is completely independent of restatement of torts 318. At the same meeting MAST also informed DULBERG that the MCGUIRES made an offer of $5,000 to be nice (they did not have to offer anything) and if DULBERG did not accept the offer it would be withdrawn and the MCGUIRES will ask for summary judgement. MAST informed DULBERG that the presiding judge would grant the MCGUIRES a summary judgement dismissing the case against them, leaving DULBERG with no settlement at all from the MCGUIRES." On December 4, 2018, two days before the Second Amended Complaint at Law was filed, a file called "working.pdf" was sent to Williams. Dulberg's comments are in colored font. In the document "working.pdf" Dulberg states in item 50-k on page 9 in red font: "The necessary facts are: MAST told DULBERG and another family member at a meeting in which DULBERG was trying to decide whether to accept the MCGUIRE's offer of $5,000 that because the restatement of torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois, DULBERG had no case against the MCGUIRES and that the MCGUIRES did not have to offer any settlement at all. DULBERG asked MAST to cite case law that shows why the MCGUIRES were not at least partially liable for DULBERG'S injury, and MAST cited Tilschner v Spangler, a case which confirms that restatement of torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois. At the same meeting MAST also informed DULBERG that the MCGUIRES made an offer of $5,000 to be nice (they did not have to offer anything) and if DULBERG did not accept the offer it would be withdrawn and the MCGUIRES will ask for summary judgement. MAST informed DULBERG that the presiding judge would grant the MCGUIRES a summary judgement dismissing the case against them, leaving DULBERG with no settlement at all from the MCGUIRES. Mast, “The legality of it all is that a property owner does not have legal liability for a worker (whether friend, son or otherwise) who does the work on his time, using his own independent skills.” On April 18, 2019 Dulberg sent an email to Williams, subject: "318 cases from December meeting". (Before bates numbering). Attachments: Sent 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. exhibit. The first attachment was named "IndependantContractor-CaseLaw1_Mast.pdf" and contained the case Tilschner v Spangler. The second attachment was named "IndependantContractor-CaseLaw2_Mast.pdf" and contained the case Lajato. The third attachment was named "IndependantContractor-CaseLaw3_Mast.pdf" and contained the case Choi. Williams received the email, downloaded the attachments, renamed them, and stored the first attachment in one folder, and stored the second and third attachments in a different folder. * (Add exhibit - Screen shot of Dulberg Master File directory tree showing where Williams renamed, separated and placed each of the files within her case file.) On July 8, 2019, one week after receiving the Popovich document disclosure from Williams, a file called "timeline_of_mcguire_settlement.txt" was sent to Williams in a folder called "To_Julia". The document 'timeline_of_mcguire_settlement.txt' under the November 20, 2013 timeline entry states: "Dulberg agrees to have another meeting with Mast in his office. (memo of meeting: pop 3) Dulberg brings his brother Thomas Kost with him. Before the meeting Dulberg asks Mast to show examples of case laws which demonstrate that McGuires are not partially responsible for the chainsaw accident. (email: folder 2013 11, file Mast2-201) In the meeting Mast uses the example of Tilschner vs Spangler. He claims that the McGuires are not responsible because Restatement of Torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois. He also claims that the accident was not forseeable by the McGuires and they had no control over Gagnon's actions. Mast also gave Dulberg a packet of other examples of case law. (ddd 204) (ddd 301)? Thomas Kost kept a rough set of notes during the meeting. (ddd 1217) Mast claims that if Dulberg doesn't accept the $5,000 the McGuires will simply file a motion to get out of the case for free. Mast said the McGuires do not have to offer anything and are offering $5,000 to be nice." (end quote) On June 18, 2020, one week before the Mast deposition, a file called "questions_for_mast" was sent to Williams. The June 18, 2020 version of 'questions_for_mast.txt' contain questions presented by Dulberg and his brother, Thomas Kost, in 9 different categories which are clearly listed at the beginning of the document. These sets of questions were a more developed version of a file by the same name sent to Williams on July 10, 2019. Questions in each category are carefully written in the order they should be asked. One of the 9 categories is named "ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 20th, 2013 MEETING IN MAST'S OFFICE". It contained 23 carefully chosen questions that Dulberg wanted Williams to ask Mast concerning the November 20, 2013 meeting. The document 'questions_for_mast.txt' states: "ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 20th, 2013 MEETING IN MAST'S OFFICE who was at the November 20th meeting? (Answer: Paul Dulberg, Hans Mast, Thomas Kost) who called for the meeting? what was the purpose of the November 4 meeting? What were the main topics discussed? Was the $7,500 offer made on october 22 discussed at the November 20th meeting? Were any decisions made at this meeting? Did Dulberg agree to accept the $5,000 counter-offer made by Barch on November 18 at the meeting? What were his grounds for disagreeing with the $5,000 counter-offer if it was Dulberg himself that initiated an offer of $7,500 on October 22nd? Did you point out to him that there is only a $2,500 difference in between the offer and the counter-offer? Did you suggest that he reply by offering to accept less than $7,500 but more than $5,000, like, for example, $6000? Was there any attempt to make another counter-offer for any amount higher than $5,000 but lower than $7,500? Why not? Did you hand Dulberg documents of case laws at the meeting of November 20, 2013? What was the purpose of providing him with documents of case laws? What case laws were in those documents? Did you discuss cases at the meeting? Which cases were discussed? What were you trying to explain to Dulberg by discussing those cases? Why did you choose those cases to use as examples? In what way were those cases applicable to the situation with the McGuires? At the meeting did you say something about how the restatement of torts 318 doesn't apply in illinois and that fact affects the case against the McGuires? Can you explain how the restatement of torts 318 affected Dulberg's case against the McGuires? Did you cite the case of Tilschner vs Spangler to DUlberg during the November 20th meeting? Why? How was the Tilschner vs Spangler case similar to what happened to Dulberg at the McGuires?" (end quote) On June 24, 2020, one day before the Mast deposition, a file called "2020-06-23_updated_timeline_of_mcguire_settlement.txt" was sent to Williams since Williams explicitly asked Dulberg to prepare it for her using different way to refer to bates numbers. On June 25, 2020 Hans Mast was deposed. For the deposition of Hans Mast, Williams inexplicably placed 2 exact copies of Lajato and a copy of Choi in a folder called "legal research" and called it "exhibit 12". She did not ask Mast any of the questions that Dulberg had instructed her to ask. She never provided the court reporter with exhibit 12 during the deposition. The deponent Mast could not see exhibit 12 during the deposition. Williams provided the court reporting agency a copy of exhibit 12 no earlier than July 14, 2020. The copy of exhibit 12 provided to the court reporting agency on July 14, 2020 contained 2 exact copies of Lajato and a copy of Choi. It did not contain Tilschner v Spangler even though Williams had been instructed by Dulberg to include it in writing on at least 6 different occasions. * When Williams was asked whether the placement of 2 exact copies of Lajato was an accident or intentional, she answered: "...". DEFENDANTS THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. POPOVICH, P.C. AND HANS MAST’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 2nd AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE DEPOSITION OF HANS MAST contains the following point #12 (quote): "12) Of concern is a statement on page 19 of Dulberg’s motion in which he argues that Mast had insisted that the decision in the Tilschner v. Spangler case was the reason Dulberg would not prevail in the underlying case against the McGuire’s. The statement is inexplicably made “on information and belief.” This is unacceptable. Dulberg has made no such disclosure in fact discovery (now closed) about this very specific discussion between Mast and himself regarding the Tilschner case. If Dulberg believes he has disclosed it, he should be required to identify where in his answers and amended answers to discovery or his deposition he has identified such discussion with this amount of specificity. Defendants submit that no such disclosure exists." A reasonable person can conclude that Williams intentionally suppressed Tilschner v Spangler. A reasonable person can also conclude that Williams suppressed Tilschner v Spangler to benefit to the defendants over Dulberg and to sabotage Dulberg's case against Popovich and Mast. The suppression of Tilschner v Spangler helps the defense deny that Mast ever discussed the Tilschner case with Dulberg and helps Mast deny that Tilschner v Spangler and the Restatement of Torts 318 was the legal theory Mast gave Dulberg as to why the McGuires were not responsible in any way for his injury on their property (which is what Flynn is basically doing in point #12 quoted above). B) THE EXAMPLE OF BRAD BULKE Williams suppressed about 40 documents of email communication which were in her possession from 3 different sources between Bulke and Dulberg from the May 30, 2019 document disclosure. The email documents and the subjects of the documents are: Hans Mast2-14 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-15 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-16 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-17 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-18 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-19 ........ with Bulke on picking up electronic file and paper file Hans Mast2-21 ........ with Bulke on lean buyout and picking up case file Hans Mast2-24 ........ with Bulke on lean buyout Hans Mast2-29 ........ with Bulke on lean buyout Hans Mast2-32 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-33 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-34 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-35 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-36 ........ with Bulke about Bulke and Mast leans buyout in exchange for case file Hans Mast2-37 ........ with Bulke about anticipated Randall Bauding phone call Hans Mast2-38 ........ with Bulke about anticipated Randall Bauding phone call Hans Mast2-39 ........ with Bulke about case being not winnable and signing release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-40 ........ with Bulke about case being not winnable and signing release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-41 ........ with Bulke about case being not winnable and signing release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-42 ........ email empty of content message Hans Mast2-43 ........ with Bulke long message about why Dulberg rejects Bulkes advice Hans Mast2-44 ........ With Bulke, Bulke is trying to get him to sign a release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-45 ........ With Bulke, Bulke is trying to get him to sign a release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-46 ........ With Bulke, Bulke is trying to get him to sign a release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-47 ........ With Bulke, Bulke is trying to get him to sign a release for $50,000 Hans Mast2-48 ........ with Bulke long message about why Dulberg rejects Bulkes advice Hans Mast2-49 ........ with Bulke long message about why Dulberg rejects Bulkes advice Hans Mast2-50 ........ with Bulke on bankruptcy questions Hans Mast2-51 ........ with Bulke on bankruptcy questions Hans Mast2-52 ........ with Bulke on bankruptcy and Gagnon's insurance Hans Mast2-53 ........ email from DUlberg to Dulberg with message for Bulke on bankruptcy Hans Mast2-54 ........ with Bulke on bankrupty and pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-55 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-56 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-57 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-58 ........ with Bulke on signing settlement check and deposit Hans Mast2-59 ........ with Bulke on settlement conference cancelled Hans Mast2-60 ........ about April 9 pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-61 ........ about April 9 pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-62 ........ about April 9 pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-63 ........ all communication with Bulke on lean buyout and picking up the case file Hans Mast2-65 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and a box from Ferris Williams also suppressed about 6 other documents mentioning Bulke. On December 17, 2019 Williams sent an email to Flynn stating: "Brad Balky. His name appears in some of the documents. You requested that we identify when he represented Mr. Dulberg and in what capacity. If he did represent Mr. Dulberg for any period, we will produce any records related to that that are in Mr. Dulberg’s possession and control." Williams asked Dulberg about Bulke and Saul Ferris on January 29, 2020. On January 30, 2020 at 10:27 AM Dulberg responded by sending an email to Williams stating: "Morning Julia, This Morning I looked up when Brad Balke filed his appearance and I found the attached document I named Balke Appearance.pdf It was March 19, 2015. This is what was filed in the public record. This should have been in the Gooch files. Looking back, I never received the digital Gooch files that were turned over to your office. Confirmed in email dated April 18,2019. The Gooch files should have included the entire case file that Mast turned over to me and the addition of the Balke and Baudin files as well as all communication records, bankruptcy documents, disability records, etc... Gooch took 6+ months to get all those records scanned in and I never was able to confirm he actually scanned in all of them. On another note, I found this: 05-08-15_Hans Mast2-56.pdf which is also attached. You may have this as, Hans Mast2-56.pdf This was provided to you on or around 11/17/2018 when I sent you all the communications I had. I did not find this in any of the bates numbered documents. It shows that the file was sent back to Saul Ferris and that I picked it up and delivered it to the firm named Danahu and Walsh at the direction of Balke." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg case) Williams was in possession of complete and well-ordered copies of Dulberg's emails from three different sources before May 29, 2019 (One on the Gooch thumb-drive in the folder UNDERLYING CASE DOCUMENTS, one on the Gooch thumb drive in a folder called "Dulberg Paul Dulberg Files Sent from Client" and one sent to Williams as an email attachment). Williams received a fourth complete copy of emails in a format which was different from the first three sources in a folder called "Lawyers Emails by Date", sent to Williams as an email attachment in a folder called "To_Julia" on July 8, 2019. Williams acted as if she was not in possession of the Bulke emails and was not aware of who Brad Bulke was when she communicated with opposing counsel on December 17, 2019 and when she communicated with Dulberg on January 29, 2020. Considering the large number of documents involving Bulke that were suppressed by Williams from the May 30, 2019 document disclosure, it is simply not credible for Williams to claim that she was not aware of who Brad Bulke was. Inexplicably, Flynn and Popovich also claimed to not know who Bulke was on December 17, 2019, even though the suppressed email communication demonstrates that Mast and Bulke have done business together in the past on friendly terms. Considering that the suppressed documents involving Bulke contained clear evidence that Mast knew who Bulke was and had dealt with Bulke in the past, it is simply not credible for Flynn, Mast or Popovich to claim they do not know who Brad Bulke is. A reasonable person can conclude that Williams suppressed the documents and emails mentioning Bulke to benefit the defendants. The suppression of documents on the communications between Bulke and Dulberg and other documents mentioning Bulke (from 4 different sources presented in different formats) makes Dulberg seem like he is the one hiding documents from the defense about Bulke, and therefore makes it appear as if Dulberg has something to hide about his relationship to Bulke and what they discussed together. C) THE EXAMPLE OF SAUL FERRIS On May 29, 2019 Williams suppressed 2 documents of email communication between Saul Ferris and Dulberg and 7 other documents of email communication mentioning Saul Ferris, the box of Dulberg's documents Saul Ferris had in his possession and a missing pretrial settlement conference letter. The documents are: Hans Mast2-54 ........ with Bulke on bankrupty and pre-trial conference and box from Saul Ferris Hans Mast2-55 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-56 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-57 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and Saul Ferris with a box of Dulberg's documents Hans Mast2-62 ........ about April 9 pre-trial conference Hans Mast2-63 ........ all communication with Bulke on lean buyout and picking up the case file Hans Mast2-65 ........ with Bulke on missing pre-trial settlement memo and a box from Ferris Hans Mast2-73 ....... with Ferris on declining case Hans Mast2-78 ....... with Ferris on declining case To suppress these documents, Williams had to suppress documents from 3 different sources in her possession since she was provided with at least 3 different complete versions of Dulberg's emails before May 29, 2019 (One on the Gooch thumb-drive in the folder UNDERLYING CASE DOCUMENTS, one on the Gooch thumb drive in a folder called "Dulberg Paul Dulberg Files Sent from Client" and one sent to Williams as an email attachment). Williams also suppressed a document sent to her from Dulberg as an email attachment called "rejection letters.pdf". Additionally, Williams suppressed two documents of declination letters from the Gooch thumb-drive. To do this Williams had to suppress declination letters from two different sources (one from the folder "Dulberg Paul Dulberg Files from Client" on the Gooch thumb-drive and one sent by Dulberg to Williams as an attached file called "rejection letters.pdf") On March 6, 2020 Flynn sent an email to Williams stating: "Julia: I write pursuant to 201(k). At Mr. Dulberg’s deposition, he testified at p. 38 that he met with attorney Saul Ferris, who would not take his case over from Popovich because “your decision to settle with the McGuire’s was a mistake and we don’t [sic] take it because of that.” From lines 15-19 on the same page, Dulberg testified that Ferris said it in a letter, on the phone, and sent him an email. Dulberg’s testimony at p. 95 also establishes that the communications with Ferris were prior to Popovich’s withdrawal in March 2015. These communications go directly to the issue of the discovery date of the alleged malpractice. I do not recall seeing an email or letter similar to what has been described. Please produce these communications, and perhaps we can avoid the necessity of combing through Mr. Dulberg’s or Mr. Ferris’ records to pinpoint the date of the phone call between the two." Williams acted as if she was not in possession of the Saul Ferris emails, letters or other documents mentioning Saul Ferris when she communicated with opposing counsel on December 17, 2019 and when she communicated with Dulberg on January 29, 2020. The suppressed emails describe how the box of documents and the missing letters were moved from the office of Saul Ferris and when and how Dulberg first received the box of documents back from the office of Saul Ferris. Considering how carefully one would have to edit and suppress emails from at least 3 different sources in order to remove all mention of Saul Ferris in the email documents, it is simply not credible for Williams to claim she was not aware of who Saul Ferris was and to claim she was not aware of the fact that Ferris was in possession of a box with documents and at least one letter which Flynn was actively seeking. Williams gave documents concerning Saul Ferris to opposing counsel and to Dulberg for the first time on July 9, 2020 inside a packet of over 6000 pages of documents, which is about 20 days before she withdrew as Dulberg's attorney. A reasonable person can conclude that Williams intentionally suppressed emails between Ferris and Dulberg and emails mentioning Saul Ferris, the movement of the box of Dulberg's documents in the possession of Ferris, and emails mentioning a missing settlement memo. A reasonable person can also conclude Williams did this to benefit the defendants. When the contents of the suppressed email documents are examined it becomes clear that the suppressed emails already contained the information that Flynn was trying to pressure Dulberg to contradict. For example HansMast2-73 contains an email document sent on Mar 6, 2015 from Saul Ferris to Dulberg in which Ferris stated: "Hi Paul I decided not to accept your case primarily based upon you settling with the homeowners for 5 thousand. I have mailed your file back to you. I would suggest attending the pretrial to at least see what kind of settlement offer is made. Thanks for letting me review your case. Sorry I can't help you. Best, Saul" And Dulberg answered on March 12, 2015: "Hi Saul, Have you already mailed the documents or can they be picked up?" In suppressed email document HansMast2-65, HansMast2-63, HansMast2-62 on (* add date) Dulberg informed Bulke: "Hi Brad, As we discussed, I was to receive via certified US Mail depositions and communications between Hans Mast and myself from Saul Ferris an attorney in Gurnee, IL. Saul Ferris number is (847) 263-7770 I called Saul Ferris office last week and was assured they were sent. I was told to give it another week. I called Saul Ferris office again today to find out they were mailed to and signed for at 3416 W. Elm St. McHenry, IL. by someone named Anne Oupl on March 7th. This is Hans Mast office. I called Hans office and apparently no one by that name works there and no one knows anything about receiving the certified mail. I'm at a loss as to how these documents were sent to the wrong place and am a bit furious because it has the memo about the pre- trial settlement you wanted to see. Please advise. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter, Paul" In another suppressed email document HansMast2-54 Dulberg emails Bulke on May 8, 2015 stating: "Hi Brad, Yesterday Saul Ferris office called and said they just received back the packet they mistakenly sent to Hans Mast at Popovich law firm. In it is the pretrial settlement memo you wanted to see. There is also the printed depositions of both the homeowners, the defendant and myself. I picked these up this morning. Let me know how to get these to you." From these emails one can learn that Ferris and Dulberg probably met in the first week of March, 2015 since Ferris declined to take the case on March 6, 2015. One can learn that someone in the office of Saul Ferris sent Dulberg's box of documents to the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich on March 7, 2015 and someone at the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich signed for the box. The person that sent the box claimed that sending the box to the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich was an accident. We can learn that the office of Saul Ferris got the box back from the Law offices of Thomas J. Popovich on or around May 8, 2015 so Dulberg's box of documents inexplicably remained in the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich for around 2 months. We can learn that a pretrial settlement memo was with the box of documents. Flynn later claimed that Dulberg met with Ferris in December 2014. Flynn claimed that Dulberg was being dishonest when he refused to admit that he met with Ferris in December 2014. Yet this suppressed email contains information that strongly suggests the meeting between Ferris and Dulberg took place in the first week of March, 2015, just as Dulberg had stated. Flynn later claimed that Dulberg received the letter by U.S. mail at his home and that the letter was sent directly from Ferris to Dulberg. Flynn claimed that Dulberg was being dishonest when he refused to admit receiving the letter at his home. Flynn then later used the confusion created by the suppression of these documents to force a deposition of Saul Ferris and to openly accuse Dulberg of intentionally hiding documents. Flynn made a significant issue of Ferris in the July 19, 2021 and the September 7, 2021 court proceedings: (2021-07-19_17LA377_Report of Proceeding_TALARICO-FLYNN_Cristin M Kelly.pdf) page 10: MR. FLYNN: I suppose with respect to the summary judgment motion that I anticipate, Judge, there was one document that was produced in order to avoid a second deposition of Mr. Dulberg to authenticate this document, which is a letter from Attorney Thompson -- I'm sorry -- Attorney Ferris -- that goes to the issue of the statute of limitations. If Mr. Talarico would stipulate to the authenticity of this March 4, 2015 letter on the record, I don't need to send a request to admit for -- THE COURT: Can you hear all that? MR. TALARICO: I heard it, Judge, but I'm not familiar with that document. A request to admit would be welcome. Flynn filed an RFA asking Dulberg to admit or deny receiving the letter while information about the box of documents in the possession of Ferris, how the box moved, how long it sat in the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich without Dulberg knowing about it, and what the box contained was in the email documents being suppressed by Williams. On July 20, 2021 Flynn filed a REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION with the following 4 requests: 1. Admit that Exhibit A attached hereto is a true, accurate, and genuine copy of a March 4, 2015 letter drafted by attorney Saul Ferris. 2. Admit that you received Exhibit A on or within 7 days of March 4, 2015. 3. Admit that you received Exhibit A on or within 30 days of March 4, 2015. 4. Admit that you met with Saul Ferris on or about December 31, 2014 with regard to your personal injury case. Flynn tried to pressure Dulberg to admit to the authenticity of a letter that contained inaccurate information (and was in the possession of the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich for about two months) and he tried to pressure Dulberg to admit Dulberg received the letter by U.S. mail even though the address at the top of the letter is not Dulberg's residence. The address is that of Flynn's own client, the law office of Thomas J. Popovich. Dulberg refused to admit the assertions as true and pointed out the inaccurate information. (2021-09-07_17LA377_Report of Proceeding_TALARICO-FLYNN_Cristin M Kelly.pdf) page 3 MR. FLYNN: Good morning, your Honor. George Flynn on behalf of defendant/movant. The basis is it's a motion to deem facts admitted. We were trying to authentic a document that was the subject of some discussion the last couple of times we appeared before your Honor. I filed the request to admit. We received objections that we believe are inappropriate and just moving for ruling on those objections and some other relief. The -- the response that they filed, essentially is a motion to strike based on the failure to conduct a 201(k) conference, which I don't think is required with respect to objections and a request to admit, which is a hybrid discovery and evidentiary tool. So with respect to the motion itself, I really have nothing to say more than what's in the motion. I'd be happy if the Court wanted to take it under advisement after it has an opportunity to review the attachments and the motion. THE COURT: No, I won't take it under advisement. We'll go back to that in a minute. Mr. Talarico, do you have any case law that says a 201(k) conference is required before 216 -- or in a 216 situation? MR. TALARICO: Yes, your Honor. Supreme Court Rule 201(a) typically says the request to admit -- THE COURT: Do you have any case law? MR. TALARICO: No, I have no case law, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Because I don't think it does. I think by its own -- by the language of the rule, it's 28 days. And in fact, I believe the rule requires that the request to admit facts explicitly disclosed if you're not -- if you don't respond in 28 days, the answers are deemed admitted. So there is no requirement to engage in a 201(k) conference to resolve differences because by its own language, it resolves itself. So let's get into the answers. Okay. Anything you want -- I see No. 1, they seem to be asking you to admit or deny the genuineness of the document that was attached? MR. TALARICO: Correct, your Honor THE COURT: And do you have any -- anything to say beyond what you've written in response? MR. TALARICO: Your Honor, use of the words defendant put into his motion, request to admit, are subject to various interpretations. And he did not include the definition of the specific words that he was using, so I relied upon the Black's Law Dictionary for definition. And within that, we were -- we reviewed the fact of the document. THE COURT: Okay. MR. TALARICO: The document -- the document is not accurate. It's not true. It's none of the above. It has a wrong date of accident, the wrong date of meeting. It has a lot of inaccuracies on it, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to strike the implicit objection regarding what is genuine. That being said, I do have what appears to be an admission. Mr. Flynn? MR. FLYNN: Yeah, Judge. I mean, it's -- I guess if it was an admission buried in these objections. But the entire document is muddled up with these various objections. I'm just asking if this is a true copy of the letter that his client received. I'm not asking if it's -- if information contained is true and accurate. If you read it, it's admit Exhibit A attached hereto is a true, accurate, and genuine copy of a March 4, 2015, letter drafted by Attorney Saul Ferris. He concluded with the content of the letter. That's not what I'm asking about. MR. TALARICO: Your Honor, that is not in true -- truth is not within that document. That's what we're saying. Those are false statements. THE COURT: And that's fine. But it is -- he doesn't need to lay a foundation for the document am I correct? MR. TALARICO: No. But the question -- I'm sorry. THE COURT: Are you -- are you admitting -- I'm assuming, Mr. Flynn, this is for purposes of a foundation? You're not asking him to admit the contents? MR. FLYNN: That's correct. This is produced -- again, late produced in discovery after the plaintiff's deposition. He should have produced this document years ago when he's placed the discovery of his malpractice at issue. So then he produces this letter. I don't want to have to take Saul Ferris's deposition, so I'm just asking, this is the letter that Mr. Dulberg produced and that it's a genuine copy of what he received in the mail? THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Talarico, yes or no? MR. TALARICO: Judge, that is a genuine copy. We don't know -- when examined, Mr. Dulberg does not recall. And in the deposition, he said he did not recall when he received it or how he received it. That is left open. THE COURT: Mr. Talarico, I asked you a yes or no question, not asking for an explanation, which is consistent with what request to admit facts require. So are you admitting to the foundation of this document or denying -- MR. TALARICO: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then we will proceed. That's deemed admitted for purposes of foundation. Next one -- Mr. Flynn, the next one at issue? MR. FLYNN: Judge, there was 2 and 3, and I attempted to pin them down on when he received it. So I asked No. 2, if Mr. Dulberg received a copy of this letter within 7 days of the date dated. And then, the next one, I asked if he received it within 30 days of the date it was dated. He doesn't answer either of those. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Talarico? MR. TALARICO: Judge, with all due respect, Mr. Dulberg answered as best he could. This was alleged to be sent by U.S. Mail. He has no idea. It was many years ago. So he answered as truthfully, as cooperatively as possible, that he has no independent recollection of when this letter was received. He did a search of his own records, as presumed, at my request. He has no envelope. THE COURT: If -- what it boils down to from my perspective is I'm reading it as a denial. And actually, that subjects you to 219(c) fees if they have -- for those fees associated with the cost of proving it up. But I'm reading it as a denial. Can I -- do you have any problem with my reading it as a denial? Am I incorrect? MR. TALARICO: No, your Honor, you're not. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Flynn, anything you want to add? My interpretation of all of that is a denial. MR. FLYNN: If that's what the answer is, then he's denied that he received this letter within 30 days of the date that the lawyer put the -- stamped it. So yeah, if I need to prove it up by taking Mr. Dulberg's -- retaking Dulberg's deposition and then taking Saul Ferris's deposition, and as I've indicated in the motion, I'm seeking fees and costs. THE COURT: Yeah. I'm going to interpret 30 -- or I'm sorry -- 3 the same way. I interpret that as a denial and you just have to prove it up. Next one? MR. FLYNN: The next one is just regarding the meeting that is referenced in the letter. Admit that you met with Saul Ferris upon or about December 31, 2014, with regard to your personal injury case. THE COURT: Okay. I -- MR. FLYNN: And he's denying -- he denied the date. He then says it's a later time period between February 23rd and March 6th of 2015, which also coincided with the drafting of that letter, by the way. So he's changed the premise of No. 4, but sort of provided an answer -- THE COURT: I think that's a denial because of the way you phrase your question. Anything after denies that he met Saul Ferris on or about December 31, 2014, with regard to -- with regard to the personal injury case, everything after that is surplusage. So you have a denial. All right. Is there anything else? MR. FLYNN: No. The relief will be requested now that these denials and improper objections were raised. I'm going to have to retake Mr. Dulberg's deposition at least on the subject matter of this letter and I'll probably have to take Mr. Ferris's deposition to prove-up the foundation for the letter as well. THE COURT: Certainly -- MR. FLYNN: So I would ask for fees and costs THE COURT: You have leave to depose Mr. Ferris. I'm not sure you need Mr. Dulberg's deposition -- I'm willing to listen -- because your deposition of Mr. Dulberg would merely result in him repeating -- MR. FLYNN: Raising the same denial, so -- THE COURT: I mean, he's on the record denied any recollection. So I don't think you need the deposition to get him to say that in the transcript because you've got it in the request to admit. And I'll hold him to that unless there's something else you think you need from the deposition. MR. FLYNN: No, Judge. I -- as you said, I think he's going to make the same denials and in my opinion play the same games he's been playing. So I'll take Mr. Ferris's deposition. I'll seek -- I'm requesting fees and costs in connection with the deposition because it shouldn't be necessary. THE COURT: Well, I think -- and unless there's a different issue with respect to the cost associated with that deposition, I think that's an issue that I would have to address after trial because my reference to 219(c) is when you have to expend money to prove-up a fact that they deny, then you are entitled to those fees, but -- so I couldn't award them yet because you haven't -- MR. FLYNN: Fair enough. THE COURT: -- you haven't done it. And I can only do that after the fact because if you fail to prove it up, you're not entitled to those fees, obviously. MR. FLYNN: Understood. THE COURT: So is there anything else we need to do today? MR. FLYNN: I don't think so, Judge. If I could just clarify the order that will read that No. 1 is admitted, 2, 3, and 4 are denied THE COURT: Yes. MR. FLYNN: That I have leave to depose Mr. Ferris. In addition, Flynn called for a deposition of Ferris in which Flynn stated: page 6: Q.· Okay.· Have you reviewed some documents today ·4· ·to -- in preparation for the deposition today to refresh ·5· ·your recollection of the matter? ·6· · · A.· You provided me with a letter, which I will ·7· ·authenticate as being my letter dated March 4, 2015, and ·8· ·then you asked me to -- if there was any documentation, ·9· ·such as my file, which I do not have.· I purged a file 10· ·after four years, and it has been six years.· But I keep 11· ·my calendar -- I've kept my calendar since I started 12· ·vexing as a civilian, meaning I was in the military, 13· ·initially, and got out in 1989, and I have a calendar 14· ·for every client I've seen since. page 8: Q.· And do you know when you met with Mr. Dulberg? ·2· · · A.· Yes.· It was on March 26th at 2:00 o'clock. ·3· · · Q.· Okay.· And we'll talk about the entry in your ·4· ·diary in a few moments.· The letter indicates that he ·5· ·consulted with your firm on December 31, 2014, in ·6· ·regards to his personal injury case. ·7· · · · · Do you know why the letter references a ·8· ·December 31, 2014, date? ·9· · · A.· I -- I can't explain the discrepancy between my 10· ·calendar and the date indicated.· I -- I -- it was too 11· ·long ago.· I don't know why. Q.· Okay.· Is it possible that Mr. Dulberg initially 13· ·contacted your office on December 31, 2014, but you 14· ·didn't actually meet with him until February or March? 15· · · A.· No.· I -- I didn't know this was an issue.· Can 16· ·you -- if you want, my -- my 2014 calendar is in my 17· ·drawer.· I can pull it out and look at December 31st. 18· · · Q.· If you have it handy. 19· · · A.· This March date was another meeting.· I do, if 20· ·you give me about one minute. Q.· Absolutely.· Thank you. 22· · · A.· So I have my 2014 calendar, and I'm looking at 23· ·December -- well, all right.· December 31st.· Even 24· ·though I'm -- well, that's -- that's New Year's Eve. 25· ·Let me see.· I normally would not meet with clients New ·1· ·Year's Eve, but let me see.· And, in fact, there is no ·2· ·entry on December 31st, 2014.· Oh, that's -- it's a ·3· ·typo. page 9: ·BY MR. FLYNN: ·9· · · Q.· Is Exhibit 2 a photocopy of the cover page of 10· ·your 2015 calendar, along with a date from 11· ·February of 2015? 12· · · A.· Correct. 13· · · Q.· Okay.· There is some handwriting on the second 14· ·page, and I don't want to get into the clients and 15· ·confidential information.· But is there an entry on 16· ·Thursday, February 26th, relative to Paul Dulberg? 17· · · A.· Yes. 18· · · Q.· And is this your handwriting? 19· · · A.· It indicates a meeting, yes. 20· · · Q.· Okay.· It indicates a meeting, and I see a few 21· ·numbers, 2:00 o'clock and 4:00 o'clock.· Can you tell me 22· ·what those mean? A.· That signifies that the meeting was originally 24· ·scheduled for 4:00 o'clock.· And either myself or the 25· ·potential client asked that it be moved up to 2:00 ·1· ·o'clock, so I drew in there it's 2:00 o'clock. ·2· · · Q.· Okay.· And next to the 4:00 o'clock entry, it ·3· ·says, Paul Dulberg.· There's a dash, and then it says ·4· ·chain saw PI 6-28-11, dash.· What does that mean? Q.· Okay.· Do you know when you drafted the letter ·1· ·and how you drafted it? ·2· · · A.· So the -- because this is more or less a form ·3· ·letter, in -- in my opinion, the December 31st date ·4· ·was -- was a date relating to another client, and I just ·5· ·didn't change the date.· But the reason why the date of ·6· ·letter March 4th makes sense in terms of when the ·7· ·potential client came in was on -- on February 26th, so ·8· ·March 4th would have been about five days later.· And ·9· ·when you have a potential statute of limitations issue, 10· ·it's advisable to get your declination letter -- see, I 11· ·stole your word already -- get your declination letter 12· ·out sooner than later. 13· · · Q.· Okay.· And there was a weekend in between the 14· ·date of your meeting and the date that the letter was 15· ·finalized, correct? 16· · · A.· Correct. 17· · · Q.· Okay.· And did this letter get mailed to 18· ·Mr. Dulberg at the address listed on the top of the 19· ·letter? 20· · · A.· To the best of my knowledge, yes. Q.· Okay.· And would that have just been sent by 22· ·regular U.S. postal mail? 23· · · A.· Correct.· If it was certified mail, the letter 24· ·would so indicate. 25· · · Q.· Okay.· So this would -- this letter was sent, to ·1· ·the best of your knowledge, by U.S. Mail, First Class? ·2· · · A.· Yes. page 16: Q.· Okay.· Do you have any reason to believe that 14· ·Mr. Dulberg wouldn't have received this letter from you 15· ·within seven days of March 4, 2015? 16· · · A.· That's a better question for the United States 17· ·Postal Service than it is for me. 18· · · Q.· I don't have -- 19· · · A.· I put it in the mail.· And it was out of my 20· ·hands. Q.· Okay.· And you're -- do you believe he would have 20· ·received this, barring any mistakes with the post 21· ·office, he would have received it, at least, within 30 22· ·days of March 4, 2015? 23· · · A.· I -- I can't speak to the processing time of the 24· ·postal service.· It's really not for me to say. page 23: Q.· Thank you.· On Exhibit 1, sir, the accident 24· ·referred to, it does not correspond with your daily 25· ·reminder and with your recollection of the date he told ·1· ·you the accident took place.· And you have no 2· ·explanation as to what January 24th, 2013, had to do ·3· ·with Paul Dulberg? ·4· · · A.· Oh, I don't think I was asked about that -- that ·5· ·date but -- ·6· · · Q.· I get to now ask you. ·7· · · A.· Yeah. ·8· · · Q.· It says -- Exhibit 1 says, your accident of ·9· ·January 24, 2013.· Is that correct?· Is that what it 10· ·says? 11· · · A.· That's what my letter says, yes. 12· · · Q.· And isn't it correct, sir, that Exhibit 1, your 13· ·daily reminder, it has the date of accident -- well, 14· ·refer -- refers to 6-28 of 2011? 15· · · A.· Correct.· So in my opinion, what happened was -- 16· ·this is a form letter.· The disengagement or declination 17· ·letter is a form letter to which I use over and over. 18· ·And apparently, I made a mistake by indicating -- well, 19· ·I don't know what the accident date is.· You gentlemen 20· ·know when it was.· So if the date's wrong, it's wrong, 21· ·because it wasn't change on the form letter. 22· · · Q.· Isn't it true that the date of accident reported 23· ·to you by Dulberg on your daily reminder, 6 -- June 24· ·28th, 2011, that's what he told you? 25· · · A.· To the best of my recollection, correct. page 28: 20· · · Q.· Exhibit 1, your letter of March 4th, the last 21· ·paragraph, the last sentence you state, We recommend 22· ·that you attempt to settle the case at the upcoming 23· ·pretrial conference with your current attorney; is that 24· ·correct? 25· · · A.· Yes. 1· · · Q.· Okay.· Could you -- could you enlighten us ·2· ·what -- what did you know about the pretrial conference, ·3· ·and then what did you know about his current attorney? ·4· · · A.· So the only way that I would have known that is ·5· ·by Mr. Dulberg telling me he had an upcoming pretrial ·6· ·conference.· And so I do remember him telling me a ·7· ·pretrial conference was scheduled.· But for whatever ·8· ·reason, he did not have confidence or faith in the job ·9· ·his current attorney was doing.· But I -- I was 10· ·encouraging him to get the case settled because there 11· ·was questionable liability in my opinion. 12· · · Q.· And at the time you wrote this letter, did you 13· ·know what the pretrial offer from Mr. Gagoan was? 14· · · A.· No. page 30: · Q.· Okay.· You testified today that you, personally ·4· ·-- no.· Wait.· I'll ask, did you testify today that you, ·5· ·personally, mailed this letter to Mr. Dulberg? ·6· · · A.· Yes. ·7· · · Q.· Okay.· Calling your attention to Exhibit 1, you 8· ·have Mr. Dulberg's address listed as 3416 West Elm ·9· ·Street in McHenry, Illinois 60050; is that correct? 10· · · A.· Yes. 11· · · Q.· Do you know who lives at -- who -- who owns the 12· ·property at 3416 West Elm Street in McHenry, Illinois 13· ·60050? 14· · · A.· I have no idea. 15· · · Q.· Would it surprise you if this was the address of 16· ·the law firm that was currently representing Mr. Dulberg 17· ·in the matter that he brought to you? 18· · · A.· It would surprise me. 19· · · Q.· Would it surprised you if this is the address of 20· ·Tom Popovich's law firm at the time? A.· It would, yeah. 22· · · Q.· So according to your testimony, you sent this 23· ·letter to Mr. Popovich and not to Mr. Dulberg? 24· · · A.· I sent the letter to the address the potential 25· ·client provided me.· I don't make up addresses.· So he ·1· ·provided me the address.· I had no correspondence or ·2· ·anything from his attorney.· I had no idea who his ·3· ·attorney was. Considering how the letter in question was with a box of documents which was inexplicably sent from the law office of Saul Ferris to the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich and remained there for around two months without Dulberg's knowledge or permission, it is simply not credible for Flynn to have persisted in insisting that Dulberg received the letter from Saul Ferris by U.S. mail at Dulberg's home. The example of Saul Ferris shows how the main points that Flynn raised with Dulberg and with Ferris about their communication and that Flynn attempted to get Dulberg to admit were directly contradicted by information in the emails that were suppressed by Williams. Flynn could not have accused Dulberg of being deceitful or evasive about his communication with Ferris unless all 9 email documents involving or mentioning Ferris were suppressed by Williams. It strains incredulity to be asked to accept that the coordination between Flynn's accusations against Dulberg and the suppression of all 9 email documents by Williams related to the same issues and proving Dulberg's claims to be true is just a coincidence. A reasonable person can certainly conclude that the careful coordination between document suppression involving Saul Ferris and accusations against Dulberg by Flynn concerning Ferris show that Williams was most probably suppressing the documents involving Saul Ferris intentionally to harm Dulberg's case against the defendants and that Flynn was aware that he was being helped by Williams and in what ways Williams was helping him. A reasonable person can conclude that if the documents mentioning Ferris were not suppressed by Williams, then the issues that Flynn later raised would have made no logical sense and would have already been answered. A reasonable person can also conclude that Flynn was deliberately using this document suppression to force Dulberg to authenticate the letter which contained inaccurate information and to force Dulberg into admitting he received the letter from Ferris through mail at his place of residence and to admitting that Ferris and Dulberg met months before the meeting actually took place. D) THE EXAMPLE OF BANKRUPTCY Dulberg informed Williams to include information about Dulberg's 2014 bankruptcy in the second amended complaint. Dulberg informed Williams that the bankruptcy trustee forced him into a binding mediation agreement against his will. Williams removed any mention of Dulberg's 2014 bankruptcy from the second amended complaint. Williams suppressed all but 2 bankruptcy documents in her possession from the documents turned over to opposing counsel on May 30, 2019. Dulberg instructed Williams to subpoena the documents of bankruptcy Trustee Heeg. Williams informed Dulberg that she cannot obtain those documents since Heeg is retired. Dulberg instructed Williams to subpoena the documents of bankruptcy Trustee Olsen. Williams informed Dulberg that Trustee Olsen complied with the subpoena "informally". On Dec 5, 2018, at 10:33 AM, Julia WIlliams wrote: "Dear Paul, Attached please find the revised version of the second amended complaint. We will plan to file it tomorrow by morning. If you can, I request that you send further thoughts and edits by 5pm today. I have a deposition in the afternoon and cannot file it later in the day. I reviewed your comments and edits. Overall, many were accepted. There were some, particularly the language about the bankruptcy, that I thought were unnecessary and would simply muddy the waters for the judge. In this case, we need to show that Mast/Popovich had a duty to advise you properly and protect your interest, they failed to do that by urging you to settle with the McGuires when you could have continued with the case against them and obtained a much better result, instead you settled and were not able to recover at least $300,000. The bankruptcy proceedings are necessary to this case. They will add color to the case and the information will definitely come out in the discovery process. That being said, I don’t want to confuse the issues and the recovery by making allegations about the bankruptcy in the complaint. Further, I don’t want to increase any burden of proof we may have by making allegations that are necessary to prove our case." (end quote) On the Gooch thumb drive there is a main folder called "Dulberg UNDERLYING CASE DOCS" which contains another folder called "Baudin". Inside "Baudin" is another folder called "BK docs" and this folder contains *(add # of) documents. On May 29, 2019 Williams suppressed all but 3 bankruptcy documents given to her on the Gooch thumb-drive from the document disclosure. In July Dulberg asked Williams to subpoena bankruptcy documents and communications from bankruptcy trustees Heeg and Olsen. Williams told Dulberg that she could not subpoena Heeg's records because Heeg has already retired and the documents are no longer available to us. Dulberg was told by Williams that bankruptcy trustee Olsen has responded to the subpoena "informally". Trustee Olsen did not include a certificate of compliance with his response to the subpoena and Williams never asked for one. 2019-09-05_17LA377_Report of Proceeding_WILLIAMS-FLYNN_Cristin M Kelly.pdf quote: MR. FLYNN: Any date in November is fine with me, your Honor. I would like to have a resolution of the privilege issue, though. It sounds like the decision hasn't been made, so -- MS. WILLIAMS: I think we're waiving privilege. I'll say it on the record, we're going to waive privilege. MR. FLYNN: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FLYNN: The only other issue that was raised -- I just reviewed the written discovery yesterday and you had (indiscernible) 201(k) that there was a bankruptcy that was mentioned kind of vaguely in one of the answers. It sounds or appears that either the bankruptcy judge or the trustee had enforced or required a mediation and a high-low agreement. To the extent that those documents are responsive to any of the requests -- and I'll have to go through them to see if they are. Otherwise I'll just issue a supplemental, but I think the bankruptcy file and communications with the trustee are probably responsive to our discovery, so I would just request that those be included in our -- MS. WILLIAMS: I think we produced a number of the bankruptcy issues, but we can talk about it today and definitely try to work out -- there's definitely -- there was a bankruptcy. We're not trying to hide that bankruptcy, so. And the trustee did resolve -- there was an arbitration based on the trustee's recommendation in the bankruptcy for the individual. On 2019-11-4 in court transcript: MR. FLYNN: So I think they are amending the discovery answers and possibly producing more documents. I'm not sure. THE COURT: Is that correct, counsel, not putting you on the spot, but is that an accurate representation? MS. WILLIAMS: Right. So I think we have produced pretty much everything we have, but I can talk to counsel about the documents. On December 17, 2019 at 11:00 AM Williams sent an email to Flynn stating "In preparation for our call today, I am resending the all discovery as I don’t think you received some of them the first time." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg case) "Dulberg BK Files Bates 2599", "Bates 2620", and "Dulberg Document Disclosure FINAL 2019 May 29.pdf" and 5 other files are attached to the email. A verification statement signed by Dulberg is also attached to the email. Williams first notified Dulberg the documents were given to opposing counsel on January 29, 2020: *(add email) Dulberg later filed complaint 2022L010905 naming bankruptcy Trustee Olsen as a defendant for breach of duty and contract fraud based on the later research and initiative of Dulberg's subsequent counsel. A reasonable person can conclude that when Williams informed Dulberg that she could not obtain any documents from bankruptcy Trustee Heeg since Heeg is retired the claim was factually untrue. A reasonable person can also conclude that when Williams allowed Trustee Olsen to comply with the subpoena "informally", valuable information was hidden from Dulberg that he needed to know in his case against Mast and Popovich and that Dulberg's later counsel later had to discover through his own efforts and which is written into civil complaint 2022L010905 naming bankruptcy Trustee Olsen and a defendant. A reasonable person can conclude that Williams intentionally suppressed the large majority of bankruptcy documents on May 30, 2019. A reasonable person can also conclude that Williams suppressed the large majority of bankruptcy documents to benefit the defendants and to sabotage Dulberg's case against Popovich and Mast. By suppressing the subject of Dulberg's 2014 bankruptcy from the second amended complaint and the May 30, 2019 document disclosure, Flynn was able to avoid all the complex issues raised in civil complaint 2022L010905 regarding the role of the bankruptcy trustee, the binding mediation agreement, a $300,000 cap placed on Dulberg's recovery against his will and the fact that Dulberg claims he never signed the binding mediation agreement and never once agreed to enter into binding mediation. The avoidance of every one of these issues raised in complaint 2022L010905 clearly benefits the defendants in that it limits Dulberg's possible recovery in the current case against Popovich and Mast to the limit of $300,000 previously imposed by the bankruptcy trustee. Once the issues raised in civil complaint 2022L010905 are taken into consideration, serious doubts involving genuine issues of fact are raised concerning whether any such 'cap' can be considered binding or legal. E) THE EXAMPLE OF THE BAUDINS The Baudins were retained by Dulberg after he fired Brad Bulke to represent Dulberg in his lawsuit against David Gagnon. The Baudins were also retained by bankruptcy trustee Olsen as special counsel for the bankruptcy estate. Williams suppressed all emails between the Baudins and Dulberg from the document disclosure to opposing counsel on May 30, 2019. Williams also suppressed documents on the relationship of the Baudins to the bankruptcy estate. On July 2, 2020 Flynn issued a Supplemental discovery request: "7. Any and all documents reflecting opinions by attorney Randy Baudin regarding the liability of the McGuire’s, whether the advice or opinions were rendered at your mediation of the underlying case (on or about December 16, 2016) or prior thereto, as testified at your discovery deposition on February 19, 2020 (see page 141)." On July 9, 2020, less than 20 days before Williams resigned as Dulberg's attorney, Williams turned over more than 6000 pages of documents to the opposing counsel which contained emails between the Baudins and Dulberg. On December 8, 2022 Dulberg filed a complaint 2022L010905 against the Baudins for legal malpractice and contract fraud based on the later research and initiative of Dulberg's subsequent counsel. A reasonable person can conclude that Williams intentionally suppressed documents which clarified Baudins relationship to the bankruptcy estate for the same reason she suppressed other documents on the bankruptcy: to avoid all the complex issues mentioned in civil complaint 2022L010905. A reasonable person can conclude that this benefits the defendants in that it caps Dulberg's possible recovery from Popovich and Mast to $300,000 without questioning the legal validity of how any 'cap' came to be part of any binding mediation agreement or without questioning the legal validity of the binding mediation agreement as a whole. As Dulberg's retained legal malpractice attorney at the time, Williams knew or should have known that the Baudins most probably committed legal malpractice against Dulberg for how they handled the binding mediation agreement and how they handled the bankruptcy estate. Considering the large number of irregularities that Dulberg's subsequent counsel has discovered through his own efforts and which are described in the complaint 2022L010905 naming both the Baudins and Trustee Olsen as defendants, it is noteworthy that Williams never at any time advised Dulberg that either the Baudins or bankruptcy Trustee Olsen did anything wrong or breached any duty of care they owed to Dulberg or the bankruptcy estate in which he was a stakeholder. As Dulberg's retained legal malpractice attorney at the time, Williams effectively shielded the Baudins and Trustee Olsen and both the bankruptcy and binding mediation processes from any scrutiny for their actions described in the legal malpractice and contract fraud complaint 2022L010905. F) THE EXAMPLE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY ANSWERS: WHAT STANDARDS OF CARE WERE BREACHED BY POPOVICH AND WHEN DID DULBERG FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THEM? Williams turned over 2598 pages of documents to opposing counsel on May 30, 2019. On November 4, 2019 in court transcript the following exchange took place: MR. FLYNN: So I think they are amending the discovery answers and possibly producing more documents. I'm not sure. THE COURT: Is that correct, counsel, not putting you on the spot, but is that an accurate representation? MS. WILLIAMS: Right. So I think we have produced pretty much everything we have, but I can talk to counsel about the documents. On June 19 2020 Flynn sent an email to Williams stating "Julia: I just received your notice of attorney lien. Will you still be taking the dep next week? My experience with receiving liens at this stage of litigation(in a high percentage of cases) is that a withdrawal shortly follows. Hopefully not the case here, but just making sure we are still on for Mast’s dep." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg -2) On July 2, 2020 Flynn filed a Supplemental Notice to Produce Documents... On July 9, 2020 at 11:42 AM Williams sent an email to Flynn stating: "Attached are more documents. As I stated on the phone, many are duplicative of what has already been produced but some are not. Because they came from a difference source, I could not determine what had been produced previously and what had not, thus, to be safe, I am producing everything. The documents should be searchable. The documents are in four files as follows: 1. 2646-2649 2. 2650-7892 3. 7893-8551 4. 8552-8708 I may need to send them in separate emails due to the size." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich et al Documents-2, Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich et al Documents) On July 9, 2020 at 11:44 AM Williams sent an email to Dulberg stating "Dear Paul, More documents were sent to George Flynn today to ensure that Gooch’s entire file on the underlying case was sent as well as communications from your subsequent counsel in the underlying case. There are two emails. This is the first with three files attached." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich et al Documents) On Jul 10, 2020, at 10:46 AM Williams sent an email to Flynn stating: "Dear George, I believe there may have been three, but simply because the first email took forever to send as the documents attached were so large. The first contained all four of the files. The second contained three files and the third contained one file. There are only four files total—so the emails are duplicative as originally I did not believe the first email would send. Thus, you should have these four files: 1. Dulberg Stamped 2646-2649 2. Dulberg 2650-7892 3. Dulberg 7893-8551 4. Dulberg 8552-8708. Please let me know if you did not receive all of the documents." (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich et al Documents-2) The more than 6000 pages of documents contained all the previously suppressed emails of Bulke, Saul Ferris, the Baudins, the letter from Saul Ferris to Dulberg among other suppressed documents. On July 27, 2020 at 2:24 PM Ed Clinton sent an email to Dulberg stating "Dear Paul, Please see the attached letter. Best Regards" (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg v Popovich 2017 L 377) In the letter Clinton and Williams resigned as Dulberg's counsel. Flynn issued supplemental discovery on July 2, 2020 asking for documents related to these specific people. When Williams resigned as Dulberg's attorney on July 28, 2020, Dulberg was left with no attorney, a supplemental discovery requesting documents which Williams had suppressed until shortly before then, and over 6000 documents he had to search through to find the relevant documents (Dulberg was given an unsearchable electronic case file from Williams in September, 2020). On July 30, 2020 at 10:21 AM Williams sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Dear Paul, These document requests are due today. We have obtained a 28 day extension so the responses are now due August 27, 2020. We anticipate filing our motion to withdraw. Thus, you will need your new counsel to respond or prepare your own response. Best Regards" (Dulberg Master File\Dulberg Emails 2020 August 19\Dulberg case) A reasonable person can conclude that Williams intentionally suppressed documents that the opposing counsel was actively seeking from May 30, 2019 until July 9, 2020 and then, just before she resigned, she "flooded" Dulberg with over 6000 documents, leaving him to answer the supplemental document discovery request on his own or with a new attorney being presented with a massive trove of documents to look through and perhaps only 28 days to do it. A reasonable person can conclude that this was done to intentionally confuse and overwhelm Dulberg and any new attorney he may retain to benefit the defendants and sabotage Dulberg's case against Popovich and Mast. G) IN ADDITION TO THE EXAMPLES LISTED IN WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON COULD CLAIM THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT DOCUMENTS SUPPRESSED BY WILLIAMS HAVE BENEFITTED OR COULD BENEFIT THE DEFENDANTS IN THE FUTURE, WILLIAMS WAS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEY AND KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE FOLLOWING: Clinton and Williams knew or should have known that a counterclaim was filed by the McGuires against Gagnon on February 1, 2013, and no answer to the counterclaim was ever filed by Gagnon. Clinton and Williams knew or should have known that Mast and Popovich must have known about the counterclaim filed by the McGuires against Gagnon and unanswered by Gagnon since early March, 2013. This was not mentioned in the complaint. Clinton and Williams knew or should have known that the Baudins also knew or should have known about counterclaim filed by the McGuires against Gagnon and unanswered by Gagnon since they first began to represent Dulberg in October, 2015. This was not mentioned in the complaint. As a practicing legal malpractice attorney Williams knew or should have known that the Baudins may have committed legal malpractice and contract fraud by coercing Dulberg into a binding mediation process without ever signing a document and because the binding mediation agreement which Dulberg gave to Gooch and the binding mediation agreement in bankruptcy court records are unsigned by any party. Clinton and Williams knew or should have known that THOMAS J. POPOVICH individually should have been named as a defendant. Clinton and Williams knew or should have known that the suppressed Tilschner v Spangler document was the slip copy of the original certified appeals court decision on Tilschner v Spangler and therefore a very unique document. There was a witness at the key November 20 meeting between Mast and Dulberg in which Mast explained his legal theory as to why the McGuires were not liable for Dulberg's injury and the witness took notes of main subjects of the meeting. Williams misidentified the witness of the November 20 meeting as "a friend" during the deposition even though she had a teleconference with Dulberg and his brother Thomas Kost (the witness) just 5 days earlier and the same person was present at the first meeting Dulberg had with Clinton and Williams. The notes of the witness consist of the 6 phrases: ... Williams and Clinton made no use of a witness of the November 20 meeting or their notes. Williams never inquired into what the witnesses of the November 4 and November 20 meetings saw and heard. Williams never inquired as to why Mast called the November 20 meeting. Williams never inquired as to why Mast called the November 4 meeting. Williams was in possession of evidence which shows the $7,500 October 22 offer made on Dulberg's behalf was not in the Baudin's or Gooch's possession, it wasn't in their case files, and they most probably didn't know the offer was ever made. Williams was instructed in writing by Dulberg exactly where to look to find this evidence and the significance of this evidence. Williams never made use of this evidence. exhibit. Williams knew or should have known the $7,500 offer was not discussed at the November 20th meeting and that a witness at the meeting can confirm this but she never made use of this. Williams knew or should have known that it is not possible for Mast to explain why he called the November 20th meeting or what was discussed if Dulberg already agreed to $7,500 nearly one month before on October 22nd but she did not make use of this. Williams knew or should have known that Mast's story was absurd on its face in that he was claiming that Dulberg made a $7,500 offer to the McGuires to settle the case on October 22, yet Mast repeatedly informed Dulberg from November 20 onward that Dulberg has only 2 options: To accept a $5,000 offer or receive nothing. The story is logically incoherent and not credible on a very simple level.