OVERVIEW: SABOTAGE OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE COUNT 1: Legal Malpractice 1-A: Effort to lock recovery at $55,000 or less to sabotage plaintiff's case and to benefit defendents and their insurance companies. COUNT 2: Discovery Abuse (collaboration between opposing attorneys to abuse the discovery process to benefit defendents and sabotage plaintiff's case) 2-A: suppression of documents and evidence favorable to plaintiff to sabotage plaintiff's case and to benefit defendents 2-B: evidence fabrication and forgery 2-C: Collaboration between opposing attorneys to corrupt the interrogatory process to sabotage plaintiff's case and to benefit defendents ? 2-D: Collaboration between opposing attorneys to corrupt the document production process to sabotage plaintiff's case and to benefit defendents? 2-E: Collaboration between opposing attorneys to corrupt the deposition process to sabotage plaintiff's case and to benefit defendents ?? Collaboration between opposing attorneys to get Gagnon to admit to negligence without knowing he is admitting to negligence and to get the Mcguires to accuse Gagnon of negligence without the McGuires knowing about it, but to keep Gagnon's admission secret from Dulberg to sabotage plaintiff's case and to benefit defendents. COUNT 3: Settlement fraud to benefit defendents and sabotage plaintiff's recovery 3-A: Settlement fraud to sabotage plaintiff's case and to benefit defendents. Making settlement offer on behalf of plaintiff but without plaintiff's knowledge to sabotage plaintiff's case and to benefit defendents. COUNT 4: Abuse of bankruptcy process to benefit defendents and sabotage plaintiff's case 4-A: Attempting to settle a case without the bankruptcy judge's knowledge or consent. Attempting to bypass the authority of the bankruptcy judge to oversee all financial transactions affecting the bankruptcy estate in order to protect the interests of creditors and other stakeholders in the bankruptcy estate. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AT LAW Plaintiff, PAUL DULBERG (hereinafter also referred to as “DULBERG”), by and through his attorney, THE LAW OFFICE OF ALPHONSE A. TALARICO, complaining against THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. POPOVICH, P.C. (hereinafter also referred to as “POPOVICH”), HANS MAST (hereinafter also referred to as “MAST”), Thomas J. Popovich, individually and Thomas J. Popovich P.C. +++ as follows: LEGAL MALPRACTICE A. Parties and Venue 1. Paul Dulberg, is a resident of McHenry County, Illinois, and was such a resident at all times complained of herein. 2. The Law Offices of Thomas Popovich, P.C., is a law firm operating in McHenry County, Illinois, and transacting business on a regular and daily basis in McHenry County, Illinois. 3. Hans Mast was an agent, employee, associate, or shareholder of The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C., and is a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this Third Amended Complaint. 4. Hans Mast is individually liable for his own legal and settlement malpractice done while acting as an agent, employee, associate or shareholder of The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C. 5. As an agent, employee, associate, or shareholder in The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C., The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich P.C. is liable for Mast’s actions alleged herein. 6. Thomas J. Popovich, at all times relevant herein, was a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois, engaged in the practice of law in McHenry County, Illinois, and a shareholder in The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C. 7. Thomas J. Popovich is individually liable for his own legal and settlement malpractice done while acting as an agent, employee, or shareholder in The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C. 8. As an agent, employee, or shareholder in The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C., The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich P.C. is liable for Thomas J. Popovich’s actions alleged herein. 9. Venue was and is therefore claimed proper in McHenry County, Illinois, as the Defendants transact substantial and regular business in and about McHenry County in the practice of law, where their offices are located. B. Relevant Facts 10. On or about June 28, 2011, Dulberg assisted Caroline McGuire (“Caroline”), William McGuire (“William”) (Caroline and William collectively referred to herein as “the McGuires”), and David Gagnon (“Gagnon”) in trimming long branches of a pine tree on the McGuires” property. 11. Caroline McGuire and William McGuire are a married couple, who own real property in McHenry, McHenry County, Illinois (“the Property”). 12. David Gagon is Caroline’s son and William’s stepson. 13. Paul Dulberg (Dulberg) lives in the next neighborhood over from the McGuire family. 14. Dulberg was invited to the McGuire’s property to see if he wanted any of the wood from the tree. 15. On June 28, 2011, at the Property, Gagnon was operating a chainsaw to remove branches from a tree and cut it down on the Property. 16. The McGuire’s purchased and owned the chainsaw that was being utilized to trim, remove branches and cut down the tree. 17. William physically assisted with removing the cut branches from the work area while supervising Gagnon’s actions. 18. Caroline physically assisted by retrieving and providing any and all tools requested by William McGuire and David Gagnon while supervising Gagnon’s and William’s actions. 19. Gagnon was acting on behalf of the McGuires’ under their supervision and at the McGuires’ direction. 20. Caroline, William, and Gagnon all knew, or show have known that a chainsaw was dangerous and to take appropriate precautions when utilizing the chain saw. 21. The safety information was readily available to Caroline and William as the safety instructions are included with the purchase of the chainsaw. 22. The safety information indicated that the failure to take appropriate caution and safety measures could result in serious injury. 23. The safety information indicated that the likelihood of injury when not properly utilizing the chainsaw or not following the safety precautions is very high. 24. The safety instructions outlined are easy to follow and do not place a large burden on the operator of the chainsaw or the owner of the property. 25. Caroline McGuire, William McGuire, and David Gagnon had notice of the potentially dangerous conditions by acquiring a chain saw that was provided with attached warnings and safety information implying that a reasonable person should exercise appropriate caution and follow the safety instructions for the chainsaw. 26. Caroline, William, and Gagnon failed to act as reasonable persons by either not exercising appropriate care, failing to follow the safety instructions, or failing to instruct Gagnon to exercise appropriate care and/or follow the safety instructions. 27. Caroline and William, owners of the property and the chainsaw, instructed Gagnon to use the chain saw despite Gagnon not being trained in operating the chainsaw. 28. Caroline and William failed to instruct and require that Gagnon utilize the chainsaw only in compliance with the safety measures outlined in the owner’s manual. 29. Gagnon failed to utilize the chainsaw in compliance with the safety measures outlined in the owner’s manual. 30. Caroline and Gagnon asked Dulberg to assist. 31.Caroline, William and Gagnon failed to provide Dulberg with any of the safety Information outlined in the owner’s manual. 32. Caroline and William McGuire failed to provide Gagnon or Dulberg with any of the protective equipment necessary for the type of work to be performed as written within the safety measures outlined in the owner’s manual. 33. Gagnon operated the chainsaw in close proximity to Dulberg and it struck Dulberg in the right arm, Dulberg’s dominant arm, cutting him severely requiring medical attention to save Dulberg’s life. 34. Dulberg incurred substantial and catastrophic injuries, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, loss of use of his right arm which resulted in a finding of permanent disability by Social Security Administration on April 20, 2017 (Please see Exhibit A attached); current and future medical expenses in amount in excess of $260,000.00; Dulberg’s lifelong career in photography, graphic design, and commercial printing; lost wages in excess of one million dollars; and other damages. 35. On December 1, 2011 Dulberg hired Mast, Popovich, and Thomas J. Popovich, individually to represent him in prosecuting his claims against Gagnon and the McGuires. (Please see Exhibit B attached) 36. Mast, Popovich, and Thomas J. Popovich, individually entered into an attorney client relationship with Dulberg. 37. Based upon the attorney client relationship, Mast, Popovich, and Thomas J. Popovich, individually owed professional duties to Dulberg, including a duty of care. 38. At the December 1, 2011 Attorney-Client Engagement meeting Dulberg brought and submitted for safekeeping the folder from the Law Firm of Botto, Gilbert, Schottland & Andrle which contained Defendant David Gagnon’s home address. Dulberg also submitted his originals of all relevant documentation including but not limited to Walgreens RX receipts. (Please see Exhibit C attached) The original documents that Hans A. Mast collected from Dulberg on December 1, 2011 are as follows: ???Dulberg entrusted 2 Original Pharmacy receipts with timestamps to Hans A. Mast at The Law Office of Thomas J. Popovich P.C. (POP 000724 - POP 000725) and (POP 000726 - POP 000727) Release papers from the Hospital (Missing - Dulberg can't determine if they are mixed in with the hospital admissions reports later collected so Dulberg is unable to cite bates stamp numbers) Walgreens Rx Receipts (POP 000724 - POP 000727) Meijer Receipt for medical supplies (POP 000865)(Dulberg 002437) Caroline McGuires hand-written insurance information (POP 000399) McGuire's home address (Missing - No record of Popovich sending McGuire's a letter at their home, rather Popovich send a letter to McGuires insurance adjuster) David Gagnon's home address (Missing - Popovich sends Gagnon a letter on 12-05-2011) All the paperwork from Botto Gilbert Schottland Lancaster, P.C. (POP 000391 and POP 000393)(POP 000395 and POP 000396) CENTEGRA NORTHERN ILLINOIS MEDICAL CENTER - 07/02/2011 - SUMMARY OF CHARGES - $1,323.75 (POP 000737) Northern Illinois Medical Center Lien delivered to Dulberg's home on 07/06/2011 $1,323.75 (POP 000600 - POP 000601) 2011-07-06 Centegra Health System Medical Records Requests - Reference Account Number B1117900323 (POP 000833) Centegra Northern Illinois Medical Center - 08/05/2011, 09/04/2011 Billing Statements - $1,323.75 (POP 000735, POP 000736) NORTHERN ILL MED CTR - Billing Statements - $1,323.75 (POP 000722) MORAINE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS - 07/16/2011 Billing Statement - $1,346.00 (POP 000811) MORAINE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS - 08/18/2011 Billing Statement - $1,346.00 (POP 000734) Radiologists Imaging Associates - 07/07/2011 Billing Statement - $50.00 (POP 000817) Dr Frank W. Sek - 07/01/2011, 07/08/2011 Receipts for Payments - $160.00 (POP 000819) Dr Frank W. Sek - 07/01/2011, 07/08/2011 Receipts for Payments - $191.00 (POP 000882) Receipt for Payment - $105.00 (POP 000882) ASSOCIATED NEUROLOGY SC - 07/31/11 Billing Statement - $90.00 (POP 000740) ASSOCIATED NEUROLOGY SC - 08/10/2011 Payment receipt $90.00 (POP 000733) ASSOCIATED NEUROLOGY SC - 08-31-2011 Billing Statement - $930.00 (POP 000730) ASSOCIATED NEUROLOGY SC - 10/31/2011 Billing Statement - $930.00 (POP 000741) *A list of all Dr's, their contact information, upcoming appointment dates that Dulberg has seen since the hospital (List is missing - Popovich sends out Medical requests on 12-06-2011.) 39. On December 5, 2011 Hans Mast caused to be sent two letters, one to David Gagnon and one by certified mail to Thomas Malatia, Adjuster for Auto Owners Insurance concerning “your insured” Caroline and Bill McGuire. (Please see Group Exhibit D) 40. Sometime soon after the MEMORANDUM of December 5, 2011 from Defendant Hans Mast to his supervisor Defendant Thomas J. Popovich and associates Maria, Diana, and Alarie Dullum, Thomas J. Popovich wrote on the aforesaid MEMORANDUM advising and instructing Hans Mast regarding who is available to pay the damages. (Please see Exhibit E attached) 41. On December 28, 2011 Thomas Malatia, Claims Representative for Auto-Owners Insurance wrote to Thomas J. Popovich individually, on behalf of Defendants William & Carolyn McGuire seeking required information about injured Plaintiff Paul Dulberg. (Please see Exhibit F as POP 000379 attached) 42.On December 28, 2011 Defendant Hans Mast responded on behalf of Thomas J. Popovich, individually to the December 28, 2011 inquiry by Thomas Malatia, Claims Representative for Auto-Owners Insurance regarding “Your insured: Caroline and Bill McGuire Claim No.: 13-2779-11. Please see number 41 above. (Please see Exhibit G as POP 000380 attached) 42. On March 19, 2012 the Defendant Law Office of Thomas J. Popovich P.C. (author uncredited) created “MEDICAL EXPENSE REPORT PAUL DULBERG DATE OF ACCIDENT: JUNE 28, 2011 DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 19, 2012 (Please see Exhibit G+1 as POP 1401-POP03 attached) 42. On March 21, 2012 Plaintiff Paul Dulberg and Defendant Hans Mast engage in a series of (3) three emails to determine their next face to face meeting. (Please see Exhibit H as Dulberg 001245 attached) 43. On April 4, 2012 Plaintiff Paul Dulberg and Defendant Hans Mast next met to discuss the status of the case. During this meeting Defendant Han’s Mast informed Plaintiff Paul Dulberg that David Gagnon had not responded to Hans Mast’s December 5, 2011 letter, that they did not know if Gagnon was insured for the Dulberg injury, and that Dulberg should drive to Gagnon’s home to confirm David Gagnon’s correct address. 44. In Hans Mast’s MEMORANDUM to file dated April 5, 2012 he stated ”I suggested that maybe we will file suit immediately so we can at least get the case in suit and proceeding forward until we know how and when we will be able to settle the case.” (Please see Exhibit I as POP 000958 attached) 45. On April 10, 2012, 131 days after Defendants Hans Mast, Thomas J. Popovich and The Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C. were retained to represent Plaintiff Paul Dulberg, Defendant Hans Mast created a MEMORANDUM to Alarie Dullum with a copy to file stating “ I want to sue the McGuire’s too for failure to supervise the cutting down of the tree and failure to provide proper equipment, etc. so that it can be done safely without injuring our client.” (Please see Exhibit J as POP000957 attached) 46. On April 10, 2012 Plaintiff Dulberg emailed to Defendant Mast stating: "Here is David Gagnon's address: 39010 90th PL Powers Lake Wisconsin, 53159 Attached below is a photo of David taken yesterday in front of his house with the address on the outside. ... Apparently you already have his address because the first thing he said was, "I stopped talking to you a few months back when I received a letter at my house from your lawyer at Popovich. It really really really ...... me off to have anything come to my house about this." (Please see Group Exhibit K designated Sent: Tue, 10 April 2012 19:26:32 -0000(UTC) as POP 00057-00059 attached) 47. The email exhibit listed in 46 above has “a placeholder” and does not display the photo that was taken on April 9, 2012 of David Gagon showing his address mounted on the wall, confirming the address Hans Mast had been previously given on December 1, 2011. (Please see Group Exhibit K designated Sent: Tue, 10 April 2012 19:26:32 – 0000(UTC) as POP00057-POP00059 attached). 48. On April 11, 2012 Minuteman Press printed (6) six copies of a partial/cropped image of the picture sent by Plaintiff Dulberg to Defendant Mast that is referenced as “a placeholder” in 47. above (Please see Group Exhibit L as POP 000619 POP 001045 POP 001046 POP 001412 attached) 49. On April 11, 2012 Plaintiff Paul Dulberg emailed Defendant Hans Mast about the Complaint to be filed against Defendants David Gagnon and the McGuires inquiring “Do I need to come in and sign anything?” Please see Plaintiff’s Exhibit M Wed, 11 April 2012 14:44:30 -0000(UTC) as POP00056 attached). 50. Neither Defendant Hans Mast nor anyone from Defendant Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C. replied to this question. 51. On April 11, 2012 Hans Mast sent a second letter to David Gagnon requesting that David Gagnon notifies his homeowner’s liability insurance carrier and requesting a conversation to avoid the necessity of filing suit. (Please see Exhibit N as POP 000371 attached) 52. On April 12, 2012 Plaintiff Paul Dulberg sent an email to Defendant Hans Mast stating “...I just received a call from David Gagon. He was a bit upset because he received another letter at his house from you asking for his homeowner’s insurance. When he got to the part about calling you if he had any questions, I told him to please do so...Wish I had a tape recorder for you to hear these conversations.” (Please see Exhibit O as POP 000367 attached) 53. On April 13, 2012 Defendant Hans Mast originated a MEMORANDUM to file which purports to be an incomplete written rendering of “Subject: PAUL DULBERG- RECORDED PHONE STATEMENT FROM DEFENDANT, DAVID GAGNON” (Please see Exhibit P as POP 001318-POP 001319 attached) 54. On April 13, 2012 Defendant Hans Mast sent an email to Plaintiff Paul Dulberg stating “You can cool him down by saying we need to do it for insurance purposes.” (Please see Exhibit Q as POP 000369 attached) 55. On April 16, 2012 Plaintiff Paul Dulberg sent an email to Defendant Hans Mast stating “David Gagnon did get a hold of me again today. Said that he had talked to you and now he wanted to talk to me.” (Please see Exhibit Q as POP 000369 attached) 56. On April 16, 2012 Plaintiff Paul Dulberg sent another email to Defendant Hans Mast stating “One more thing to add. He said he would give us a copy of his policy if we need it.” (Please see Exhibit Q as POP 000369 attached) 57. On May 14, 2012 Defendant Hans Mast again sent Plaintiff Paul Dulberg to personally meet with Defendant David Gagnon at David Gagnon’s residence in the State of Wisconsin to obtain through personal attendance and discussion Defendant David Gagnon’s homeowner’s insurance information. (Please see Exhibit P as POP 000361- 362 attached) 58. On May 15, 2012 at 02:19 AM Plaintiff Paul Dulberg responded to Defendant Hans Mast’s email communicating the requested Gagnon homeowner’s insurance information. (Please see Exhibit R as POP 000361-362 attached) 59. On May 15, 2012 on or about 3:30 PM Defendants Mast, Popovich, and Thomas J. Popovich, individually on behalf of Dulberg filed an unverified Complaint and Summons against Gagnon and the McGuires numbered 12 LA 178 wherein David Gagnon’s Homeowner’s Insurance Policy information was not utilized or stated. (Please see Group Exhibit S as POP 1163-1169, POP1184-1188, POP1191-1194 and POP 000624 attached) 60. The unverified claims against the McGuires included (a) common law premises liability, (b) statutory premises liability, (c) common law negligence, and (d) vicarious liability for the acts of their son and agent David Gagnon. Please see #59 above. 61. The Complaint was filed without review, signing and verification by Party/Plaintiff Paul Dulberg. Please see number 59 above. (POP 001163 - POP 001169)(Dulberg 000306 - Dulberg 000312) 62. Complaint 12 LA 178 included an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 222(b) Affidavit re Damages Sought. (Please see Exhibit T as POP 001170 attached) 63. The included Illinois Supreme Court Rule 222(b) Affidavit re Damages Sought was not signed by Party/Plaintiff Paul Dulberg but was signed by Defendant Hans Mast. 64. The Illinois Supreme Court Rule 222(b) Affidavit re Damages Sought stated “ 2. That on behalf Plaintiff, PAUL DULBERG, I am hereby requesting money damages in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00, together with the costs of this action, against each of the above-named Defendants.” (Dulberg 000002, Dulberg 002945, Dulberg 006352, Dulberg 006535) (POP 001170) Popovich never asked the judge to approve a change to over $50,000 during his representation of Dulberg even as the medical bills alone grew and came to exceed $60,000 Hans A. Mast has the clerk send summons to all defendants on May 15, 2012 with "Amount Claimed $50,000.00+" (POP 001184 - POP 001188) (POP 001191 - POP 001194) (Dulberg 001278 - Dulberg 001279) (Dulberg 001698 - Dulberg 001699) 65. On May 16, 2012 Defendant Hans Mast caused to be sent by U.S. mail to Plaintiff Paul Dulberg a letter informing Plaintiff Dulberg that suit was filed on his behalf without indicating when it was filed and without including or offering Plaintiff Paul Dulberg an opportunity after filing to read the Complaint. (Please see Exhibit U as Dulberg 001679 and POP 000365 attached) 66. On May 18, 2012 Plaintiff Paul Dulberg sent an email to Defendant Hans Mast inquiring “...if David Gagnons home owners insurance policy number checked out? Thereafter Defendant Hans Mast responded “ Paul, it’s a fair concern. But until the suit is served on him and his insurance appears in the case, Im not gonna be able to tell you anything. Also, be aware that many policies have only $100,000 in coverage. So we need to find this out first...” [Emphasis Added] (Please see Exhibit V as POP 000358 attached) 67. (Dynamic Hand Lien) (615-618) Signed on 127 and 12-6) 68. (Med checks) 69. On June 3, 2012 Defendants Caroline (Carolyn) McGuire and Bill (William) McGuire were served with Summons-30 Day. (Please see Exhibit V+1 attached) 69.1 On June 11, 2012 Thomas J. Popovich, individually received a letter from Attorney Ronald A. Barch indicating that Mr. Barch had been requested by Auto-Owners Insurance Company to appear and defend Mr. and Mrs. McGuire (Please see Exhibit V+2 as POP 000349 attached) 69.2 On June 12, 2012 Plaintiff Paul Dulberg sends medical scheduling information that will take place at Northwest Community Hospital. (Please see Exhibit V+3 as POP 000350) 69.3 On June 14, 2012 Defendant David Gagnon was served with Summons-30 Day. (Please see Exhibit V+4 attached) 69.4 On June 21, 2012 at 09:05 AM Defendant Hans Mast received a fax from MidAmerica Orthopaedics by way of what is currently listed as an unallocated phone number (847-321-2043) consisting of 6 pages of which only the last 5 pages have been located. (Please see Group Exhibit V+5 as Dulberg 002189-002193 attached) 70. In the first full paragraph of the section titled “History & Physical” of the 3 rd page at lines 3-5 of the fax Marcus G. Talerico, M.D. stated “He apparently was using a chain saw when he accidentally struck the volar medial aspect of his right forearm in roughly the mid forearm range with a chain saw” [Emphasis Added] Please see number 69.4 above. 71. On June 21, 2012 at 9:05 AM [Emphasis Added] Defendant Hans Mast caused to be sent an email to Plaintiff Paul Dulberg stating “Paul, just a quick note. I saw records come in from MidAmerica Hand and Shoulder Clinic- Dr. Talerico. The history of your injury suggests you were operating the chain saw yourself -not someone else.[Emphasis Added] This might be troublesome unless you clear that up with Dr. next visit. thanks” (Please see Exhibit W as POP 000348 attached) 72. On June 21, 2012 at 3:10 PM [Emphasis Added] Plaintiff Paul Dulberg emailed to Defendant Hans Mast “I just called the libertyville office for MidAmerica Hand and Shoulder Clinic. Talked with Gabby. She told me she could not change the record but would make an addendum to the record to clarify that I was not the one operating the chainsaw. She apologized for the confusion and said that it was lost between the Dr.'s notes and the person who transcribes the records. She is going to call your office and fax over the addendum. Please let me know if you get the addendum and if it is ok” [Emphasis Added] Please see number 71 above. 72.1 On June 25, 2012 Northwest Community Healthcare sent a fax to Defendant Hans Mast requesting the name and address of the homeowners insurance ... Claim number, Name of responsible party and Date of Incident. (Please see Exhibit X as POP 000620- 000621 attached) 72.2 On June 25, 2012 Defendant Hans Mast causes to be made a MEMORANDUM to Alarie C; File regarding the need to have Plaintiff Paul Dulberg’s medical expense report updated. (Please see Exhibit Placeholder as POP 000953 attached) 72.3 On June 27, 2012 Defendant Hans Mast responded to the June 25, 2012 request (please see 72.1 above) by failing to give the requested information. (Please see Exhibit Y as POP 000345- 000346 attached) 72.4 On June 27, 2012 Defendant Hans Mast causes to be filed with the Clerk of Circuit Court a PROOF OF SERVICE with the Document Description: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS, BILL McGUIRE AND CAROLINE McGUIRE, PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS, BILL McGUIRE AND CAROLINE McGUIRRE, RULE 237(b) NOTICE TO PRODUCE AT TRIAL AND/OR ARBITRATION TO DEFENDANTS, BILL McGUIRE AND CAROLINE McGUIRE AND NOTICE OF DEPOSITION S OF DEFENDANTS addressed to Counsel for Defendants Caroline and Bill McGuire. (Please see Exhibit Z attached) 72.5 On July 19, 2012 “RELEASE OF INFORMATION PREBILL” was sent to Thomas J. Popovich from Northwest Community Hospital. ( Please see Exhibit AA as POP000626 attached) On July 24, 2012 Mast sent a letter to Ronald A. Barch stating: "See medical expense report itemizing bills (with bills attached) in the amount of $7,313.43. Plaintiff is still treating and bills are coming treaters including Associates in Neurology, Dr. Frank Sek, Fox Lake Dynamic Hand Therapy, Hand Surgery Associates and Dr. Sagerman/Biafora, Mid-America Hand to Shoulder Clinic and Dr. Talerico, Northern Illinois Medical Center and Northwest Community Hospital. Investigation continues." "Medical records are attached obtained thus far from Drs. Karen Levin at Associated Neurology, Northern Illinois Medical· Center, Mid-America Hand to Shoulder Clinic and Open Advanced MRI. Investigation continues." (Dulberg 004205 - Dulberg 004205) (Dulberg 005701 - Dulberg 005702 and possibly Dulberg 005703?) Sometime between July 9, 2012 and August 6, 2012 The Law offices of Thomas J. Popovich P.C. sent the following to the McGuires: "PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS, BILL McGUIRE AND CAROLINE McGUIRE" (Dulberg 001980 - Dulberg 001986) "PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS, BILL McGUIRE AND CAROLINE McGUIRE" (Dulberg 001991 - Dulberg 001993) On August 6, 2012 The McGuires send to Hans A. Mast the following: "ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS BILL McGUIRE AND CAROLYN McGUIRE" (Dulberg 000162 - Dulberg 000175) "ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO PRODUCE BY DEFENDANTS BILL McGUIRE AND CAROLINE McGUIDRE" (Dulberg 000156 - Dulberg 000161) Note: None of this was in Dulberg's hands until July 16, 2015. (Dulberg 002880)(Dulberg 002883 - Dulberg 002884)(Dulberg 004898 - Dulberg 004899)(Dulberg 004900)(Dulberg 004901)(Dulberg 006765 - Dulberg 006766)(Dulberg 006768)(Dulberg 007158)(Dulberg 007160)(Dulberg 007161) 72.6 On August 8, 2012 Defendants Carolyn McGuire and Bill (William) McGuire served Answers to Plaintiff’s Written Interrogatories and “Responses to Plaintiff’s Production” ON PLAINTIFF. [EMPHASIS ADDED] (Please see Exhibit BB attached) 72.7 On September 5, 2012 Defendant David Gagnon’s Appearance was filed by attorney Perry Accardo. (Please see Exhibit CC attached) 72.8 On October 1, 2012 Defendant Hans A. Mast sent to Perry Accardo, Law Office of M. Gerard Gregoire, attorney for Defendant David Gagnon ( Please see 72.7 above) the previously filed Discovery Responses that were served upon and answered by Plaintiff before Defendant David Gagnon appeared. (Please see 72.4 and 72.6 above and Exhibit DD as POP 000315 attached) Gagnon Interrogatories - all documents (POP 000268, POP 000505, POP 001298, POP 002094, POP 004476, POP 004481) Gagnon's attorney has never responded to interrogatories served upon Gagnon by Mast. A short time before November 27, 2012 a meeting between Dulberg and Mast occurred. At the meeting Mast told Dulberg the defendant Carolyn McGuire claimed she paid for Dulberg's prescriptions following the Hospital visit on June 28, 2011. Dulberg rebuked this claim and states that he paid for the prescriptions and that it would be impossible for Caroline McGuire to give him money because the pharmacy was the first place he went after leaving the hospital and the hospital recorded the time he left and the pharmacy recorded the time he turned in the prescriptions he had filled and that it would be impossible to make a round trip from the hospital to the McGuires home and back to the pharmacy in the times that are recorded. Mast claimed that the pharmacy receipt didn't record the time, just the date. Dulberg told Mast he remembers a timestamp on the receipts. Mast says well okay, lets take a look and pulled out 2 pharmacy receipts from a manilla folder and showed them to Dulberg. (Dulberg 006350 and Dulberg 006351) While Dulberg was looking at the documents, Mast said you can't even prove you paid for the prescriptions. Dulberg says I know there was a time on here. Dulberg asks to keep the receipts. Mast says sure, I have more copies of them. Dulberg writes notes on one receipt "need timestamp from when this prescription was filled & picked up". (Dulberg 006350) - Has Dulberg's hand written notes about "need timestamp from when this prescription was filled" and contact information for the custodian of records for Walgreens. (Dulberg 006351) (Dulberg 006350) Dulberg goes home and contacts the Walgreens pharmacy where the prescriptions were filled for the time of day the prescriptions were filled and is given instruction on where to get that information. Dulberg records this on the receipt: "Walgreens Custodian of Records (217)554-8949 8am-5pm Mon-Friday" (Dulberg 006350) Dulberg then contacts the Walgreens custodian of records and is instructed that the request must be in writing and Dulberg writes the address and fax number on the receipt: "Walgreens Custodian of Records P.O. Box 4039 Danville, IL. 61834 217-554-0955 Fax Request" (Dulberg 006350) Dulberg follows through and requests the records and the following report is generated by the Walgreens Custodian of Records on November 27, 2012. (Dulberg 006687) (Dulberg 006687) - Is the report from the custodian of records at Walgreens. Dulberg gets the report and does not see the time of day he is after in the report. Dulberg then calls the custodian of records and tells them he is looking for the time of day in the report and its not there. The Custodian of records informs Dulberg that the audit of the local store they performed won't have that information and that the only time a timestamp is handed to a customer is the prescription drop off receipt the local store gives someone when they first drop off a prescription to be filled and not the payment receipt. The prescription drop off receipt shows the customer the time of day the customer turned in the prescription so the customer knows how long they have had to wait for their prescription to be filled. The payment receipt is a different receipt and only the payment receipt kept in the archives. Dulberg having turned over all the original paperwork he had to Mast realizes that he cannot independently prove the time of day he was at the pharmacy and stops investigating and starts to question his own memory and if he actually kept the prescription drop off receipt or even turned it over to Mast. Note: The prescription drop off receipt with the timestamp reappears on the same document as the payment receipt, just as Dulberg remembered it, in the "Dulberg Def Doc Production POP 00001-001455.pdf" containing 1455 pages of discovery for the instant case and is given to Dulberg by Julia Williams on June 28, 2019 and Dulberg identifies the Missing pharmacy receipt with timestamps on July 4, 2019 when looking through the 1455 pages. (POP 000724 - POP 000727) On January 24, 2013 Dulberg was deposed On February 1, 2013 Ron Barch filed CROSS-CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION AGAINTS CO-DEFENDANT DAVID GAGNON. In the cross-claim the McGuires state as follows: 7. At the time and place alleged, notwithstanding his aforementioned duty, Defendant David Gagnon was then and there guilty of one or more of the following negligent acts and/or omissions: a. Caused or permitted a chainsaw to make contact with Plaintiffs right arm; b. Failed to operate said chainsaw in a safe and reasonable manner so as to avoid injuring Plaintiff's right arm; c. Failed to maintain a reasonable and safe distance between the chainsaw he was operating and Plaintiff's right arm; d. Failed to properly instruct Plaintiff prior to approaching him with an operating chainsaw; c. Failed to properly warn Plaintiff prior to approaching him with an operating chainsaw; f. Failed to maintain the chainsaw in the idle or off position when he knew or should have known that Plaintiff was close enough to sustain injury from direct contact with the subject chainsaw; g. Failed to maintain a proper lookout for Plaintiff while operating the subject chainsaw; h. Failed to maintain proper control over an operating chainsaw; 1. Was otherwise negligent in the operation and control of the subject chainsaw. 8. That the injuries alleged by Plaintiff PAUL DULBERG, if any, were the direct and proximate result of negligence on the part of Defendant David Gagnon. (end quote) Gagnon's attorney Accardo has never filed an answer on behalf of Gagnon. On February 1, 2013 the McGuires filed DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE in which they stated: 1. That on the date and the place alleged in the Plaintiffs Complaint, the Plaintiff, PAUL DULBERG, was guilty of negligence by failing to exercise due care and caution for his own safety in that he: b. Failed to use due care and caution as he assisted Defendant David Gagnon during the trimming and cutting of trees and branches when he knew and appreciated the dangers associated with chainsaw usage. c. Was inattentive and unobservant to surrounding conditions and dangers as he assisted Defendant David Gagnon during the trimming and cutting of trees and branches. d. Notwithstanding a reasonable opportunity to do so, failed to maintain a safe distance between himself and an operating chainsaw. e. Was otherwise careless and negligent as will be demonstrated by the evidence at trial. 2. That by reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Plaintiff, PAUL DULBERG, and as a direct and proximate result thereof, the Plaintiff sustained the damages claimed. Of February 6, 2013 Mast filed an ANSWER TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE on behalf of Dulberg which denied each of these allegations. On February ##, 2013 David Gagnon was deposed. Mast and Popovich seem to allege that the Gagnon interview transcript is a legally valid deposition. The transcript as it was provided by Urbanski reporting services had a certification page signed by a person named "Maggie Margaret Orton". On ## Margaret Orton was subpoenaed for 20 signatures and she provided 20 signatures Omni document agency compared the signatures and has concluded "..." Omni report on Gagnon exhibit 1 In the interview Mast led the witness Gagnon and intentionally did not follow up on easily impeachable testimony during the Gagnon deposition. An example of Mast leading Gagnon during his deposition occurs in this exchange: (POP 001248) Page 13: Q. All right. Let me stop you because I understand what you're saying. You're saying after his injury you drove his car with him as a passenger to the hospital? A. Yes. Q. He got treated, discharged, and then you were back in his car going back to your mom's house? A. Never left the parking lot and he said that. Q. No, I understand that -- A. Yes, but that's -- Q. -- but that's where you were going? A. Yes. Yes. Q. All right. Let's try not to -- I'll try and won't talk over you; you try not to talk over me. All right. So you're leaving the hospital still in his car on the way to your mother's house, right? Right? That's on the way? That's where you were going? A. Right, that's where we were going, but we still had not left the parking lot. Q. All right. I didn't say anything about where you were. I'm saying you're in the car on the way to your mother's house, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Yes. Mast knew that Dulberg told him they drove from the hospital to a pharmacy on the day of the accident. The timestamps on the pharmacy receipts prove Dulberg’s description is accurate. Both Gagnon and Carolyn McGuire insisted Dulberg went directly from the hospital to McGuire’s house before returning to the pharmacy. In the above exchange Mast is clearly leading the witness and helping Gagnon lie and contradict his own client. Easily identifiable acts of perjury by Gagnon in his deposition are as follows: 1) Mast led Gagnon to state they drove from the hospital directly to the McGuire house (4 times in a row). 2) Mast allowed Gagnon to describe the limb being cut when the accident occurred as 4 or 5 feet long. Dulberg described it as being about 20 feet long. Mast helps Gagnon completely misrepresent the size and position of the limb being cut. 3) Mast allowed Gagnon to misrepresent the chainsaw accident. Mast drew a diagram of a branch that was shorter than a man and being held vertically upright by Dulberg. On February 11, 2013 Mast wrote a letter to Dulberg stating: "Obviously, this case is going to come down to your word against David's word. With your testimony, it seems very clear that David was negligent in operating the chaimsaw to cause it to strike you right forearm. Unfortumately, David's version of the accident is much different. Given the conflict in the testimony, it is difficult to determine how a jury will untimately decide liability in this case. If the jury decides for you, you will obviously win. However, if the jury finds for Mr. Gagnon, you will lose. One additional factor is that David testified that you stated after the fall "I may never have to work the rest of my life" and that you urged him to help by offreing favorable testimony. If true, this could be problematic to the case." (POP 000260) On February 13, 2013 at 18:03:09 -0000 (UTC) Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "In response to your letter about Gagnon's deposition: In the first place, why would I hold up the very end of a branch with my damaged left arm? And if I did do it as Dave Gagnon said, I would have had my back to him. What he said makes no sense. In the second place, if you have ever been cut by a chain saw, the last thing on anyone's mind would be making a profit. I was in so much pain that I could not have talked seriously about anything other than stopping the bleeding and getting to a hospital fast. David did not come into the hospital with me. He dropped me at the door and was parking the car. He was brought into the ER and questioned by the staff that was there. You can check with whoever was working the ER that day. It's not really my word against David's but David's word against those that were working in the ER. There is one witness as to David talking about making money off of this accident. Mike Mcartor heard David say this to me in David's garage the day I went up to David's house to get his home owner's insurance policy number per your request. Mike Mcartor is a friend that grew up with David and myself and is currently living at my residence. On February 13, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Evey case has different versions of the same accident. Unfotunately, when there are no witnesses, its hard to know how the jury will decide a case. David's description of the accident made sense to him and he described it in a way that "could have"occurred even though different from your description. I think the only way to prove him wrong is to show him to be incredible in other ways...for instance his assertion that you told him "you could be rich" in front of your room mate. If your room mate will cooperate and say that David is wrong - that you did not say this, this could be a very good way to show him to be wrong. Would your room mate agree to a deposition in the case? if so, have him call me...thanks Paul...." On March 18, 2013 Mast sent all defendants attorneys, Barch and Accardo, copies of the pharmacy receipts without the timestamps 2 days prior to deposing Caroline and William McGuire (POP 000231 - POP 000238) specifically (POP 000235 and POP 000236) Pharmacy receipts without timestamps found in: Mast communication with all defendants attorneys Ronald A. Barch and Perry Accardo. (POP 000231 - POP 000238), Specifically (POP 000235, POP 000236) *** Special Note: This is missing the pharmacy receipts Mast was given on December 1, 2011. Also, I have been unable to find this letter within the Popovich Disclosure Documents. I have found it in the subpoenaed Barch documents in a file named Plaintiff's Discovery Responses.pdf Pages 4 & 5. I think the subpoenaed Barch Documents is how it ended up in the Dulberg document disclosure, Still need to check Gooch to be sure it wasn't before Gooch. On March 20, 2013 CAROLYN McGUIRE, WILLIAM McGUIRE, and MIKE McARTOR were deposed. Mast and Popovich seem to allege that the Carolyn McGuire, William Mcguire and Mike McArtor interview transcripts are legally valid depositions. The transcript as it was provided by Urbanski reporting services had a certification page signed by a person named "Paula Ann Erickson". On ## Paula Erickson was subpoenaed for 20 signatures and she provided 20 signatures. Omni experts analysis of the signatures here. Mast led the witness Carolyn McGuire and intentionally did not follow up on easily impeachable testimony during the Carolyn McGuire interview. Mast helped Carolyn McGuire lie in her interview about Dulberg returning to the McGuire house directly from the hospital by hiding the pharmacy timestamps. During the interview by Mast with Carolyn McGuire the following exchange took place: (POP 001223) Page 56: Q. So they both run into the house, right? Yes? Yes? A. Yes. Q. You wrap the arm, then they run back out. They go to the hospital. They are at the hospital approximately, and I know you didn't time it, but approximately an hour and a half at the ER? A. Uh-huh. Q. And they come back to your house, correct? A. Correct. Yes. Q. And then Paul and Dave come into the house again? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And do you sit down and talk to him or what happens? A. Well, Paul needed medication to have refilled and he didn't have any insurance and didn't have any money on him so I gave him $50 to go get the prescriptions refilled. Q. Okay. A. Not knowing how much they would cost but you know. Q. So as I understand it, Paul comes back to your house from the ER and says, hey, I need to refill (POP 001224) Page 57: this prescription for pain medication and don't have any money and you give him $50? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So he asked -- Did he ask -- Hold on. Did he -- It looks like you want to talk. Did he ask you for the $50 or did you just offer it to him? A. I offered it to him. He didn't ask. Q. How long was Paul in the house when he returned from the ER until he left to get the prescription filled? A. They weren't there maybe a few minutes and they went to the drug store. Q. So Dave then took Paul in Paul's truck and went to the drug store to fill the prescription? A. Uh-huh. Q. And then when Dave returned, did he return alone or with Paul again? A. I believe he took Paul home. Q. Right. A. And he could walk from Paul's house. Q. Right. So it's your belief that Dave would have walked from Paul's house back to home and that's when he arrived home then? A. Right. (POP 001224) Page 58: Q. Was that within the hour? A. I don't know how long he was at Paul's house once he -- Q. Okay. But after Dave and Paul left in Paul's truck to go fill the prescription, Dave then returned next alone to the house, right? A. Back to my house. Q. Yes. A. Yes, because he -- Q. So it was your feeling that he probably dropped Paul after and left the truck at Paul's house? A. Yeah. It was his truck. Paul's truck. Q. I understand. A. Okay. Q. All right. Okay. Now, let's go back a little bit and let me ask a couple follow-up questions. When Paul ran into the house after the accident, okay -- A. Uh-huh. Q. -- with the injury, did he say anything about how it happened? A. There wasn't time. No. Q. I understand there might not be time. I am just asking if. If they didn't you can just say they Factual Notes: Dulberg went from the hospital to the nearest pharmacy and had his prescription filled. David Gagnon pulled Dulberg's wallet from Dulberg's back pocket and handed the pharmacist cash from Dulberg's wallet since Dulberg could not. Last recorded time at Hospital is recorded on 3 different places within the Hospital report. 5:13 pm or 17:13 discharge instructions (Dulberg 000227)(Dulberg 002156)(Dulberg 005719)(Dulberg 005727)(Dulberg 007540) 5:13 pm or 17:13 Pain 4 time (Dulberg 002150)(Dulberg 002163)(Dulberg 005712)(Dulberg 005734)(Dulberg 007546)(Dulberg 007609) 5:13 pm Discharge by WJD0610 @ 1713 (Dulberg 000229)(Dulberg 002158)(Dulberg 005721)(Dulberg 005729)(Dulberg 007542)(Dulberg 007604) Timestamps from Pharmacy 5:39 Dulberg gives pharmacist 2 prescriptions and the prescription drop off receipts are marked "WAITING TUE 5:39PM New" (POP 000724)(POP 000726) Fact: On June 28, 2011 26 minutes elapsed between the last recorded time at the Hospital and the Walgreens Pharmacy at the busiest time of day for traffic in McHenry, Illinois. Fact: With absolutely no traffic at midnight it takes: 16 minutes using the fastest route from the Hospital located at 4201 Medical Centre Dr, McHenry, IL 60050 to the McGuires home at 1016 W Elder Ave. McHenry, IL 60051 14 minutes using the fastest route from the McGuires home at at 1016 W Elder Ave. McHenry, IL 60051 to the Walgreens Pharmacy at 3925 W Elm St, McHenry, IL 60050 For a total of 30 minutes and this does not include walking time from the emergency department to the car out in the parking lot, parking and visiting with Carolyn McGuire in her home and getting $50.00 or parking in the parking lot and walking time from the car to the back of the Walgreens store where the pharmacy is located. In addition, Rt. 120 in Mchenry between Rt. 31 North and Rt. 31 South has undergone a major construction changes to increase the flow and amount of traffic it can handle since June 28, 2011. Also, Johnsburg removed stop signs from Johnsburg Rd and built a roundabout so all traffic keeps moving rather than backing up at the stop signs. Because of the major construction projects Dulberg cannot today provide accurate travel times from the hospital to the McGuires home and back to the pharmacy back in June 2011. So Dulberg uses the faster travel times today to get his numbers and it still won't fit in the time allotted from the documented times recorded by the hospital and the pharmacy. Not to mention, there are 3 other pharmacies, (Walmart, Meijer, CVS) which are closer to the McGuires home Dulberg would have had to pass to get all the way back to the Walgreens pharmacy closest to the hospital and there is even a Walgreens in Fox Lake that is less than 10 minutes away from the McGuire home that would be closer. The idea that Dulberg went to the McGuires home for money without knowing how much he would need then went all the way back to the pharmacy closest to the hospital during the busiest hours of the day for traffic in less time than it takes to make the trip in the middle of the night with no traffic is just plain ludicrous!!! Easily identifiable acts of perjury by Carolyn McGuire in her deposition: 1) Perjury about how Dulberg came to her house directly from the hospital to ask for money. (the pharmacy timestamps prove this cannot be true) 2) Perjury about Carolyn McGuire calling the emergency room for information about Dulberg’s condition (The emergency room does not give information on the condition of patients to the general public. Carolyn McGuire lied to the emergency room staff and claimed she was the mother of Dulberg over the phone.) 3) Dulberg claimed that he never entered the McGuire house immediately after being cut with the chainsaw. Carolyn McGuire claims he was in the house for about 1 minute. It is impossible to be in the house for 1 minute without leaving a lot of blood. This could have been verified. 4) Carolyn McGuire claimed that Dulberg lifted a 200 lb tiller off of a trailer by himself with her directly in front of him and watching him sometime after the chainsaw accident. Dulberg claims there were 3 people present and it was the third person that moved the tiller. This could have been verified simply by deposing the third person and asking them. 72.9 On April 24, 2013 Perry A. Accardo filed with the Circuit Clerk a NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE indicating Defendant David Gagnon’s attorney’s Law OFFICE had changed its name from Law office of M. Gerard Gregoire to LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. LIHOSIT. (Please see Exhibit EE as POP 1144-POP 1145 attached) 73. On August 30, 2013 an unfiled Notice of Discovery Deposition(s) regarding Deponent Dr. Marcus Talerico was mailed to the parties’ by Defendant David Gagnon’s attorney. (Please see Exhibit FF as POP 00070-POP00071 attached) 74. On October 15, 2013 Defendant David Gagnon’s attorney sent a letter to the Plaintiff and Defendants Carolyn and William McGuire’s attorneys confirming the discovery deposition of Dr. Marcus Talarico for OCTOBER 16 AT 1:00 PM. [EMPHASIS ADDED] (Please see Exhibit GG as POP 000067 attached) On October 22, 2013 Mast made a settlement offer of $7,500 to McGuires through their attorney Barch claiming Dulberg discussed it with him and agreed. (POP 000192) There is no evidence of any communication about the $7,500 offer leading up to or at any time following Oct 22, 2013. On October 30, 2013 Mast in an email to Dulberg first expressed doubt about Dulberg's case against Gagnon. Mast stated: "Paul, here are my U1oughts regarding your case. There are two issues. The first liability, or whether Mr. Gagnon is liable for your injury. If he is not proven liable, then it does not matter how badly you were hurt since he will not be found responsible f01 your damages. The second issue is your damages, or to what extent you were injured due to Mr. Gagnon's acts. Both of these issues are strongly contested in your case. As to liability, there were no witnesses to the accident. So, whether Mr. Gagnon will be held responsible for your damages is uncertain and a gamble. That is because it is your word against his word. Our argument is that you were simply holding a limb when he caused the chain saw to strike you. His argument is that you moved your arm in the path of the chain saw unexpectedly. If the jury determines that we did not prove your "version" of the accident, then they can find against you and in favor of Mr. Gagnon at trial. As to damages, the issue is complicated. That is because your treating physicians do not all agree on exactly what injury you suffered or whether your had a fully recovery or not. Dr. Talerico at MidAmerica Hand and Shoulder, saw you twice. The first time was in December, six months after your injury. He was not supportive of your claim in most respects. He didn't really feel there was anything wrong with you - as to the forearm. He said that you complained mostly of pain radiating down the forearm from the laceration site with numbness and tingling. On exam he noted no tenderness and it was mostly a normal presentation. Strength was good. He did not see any nerve problem. He prescribed physical therapy due to a muscular s01t of symptomology - not nerve related. Apparently you did only 2 sessions of therapy and returned January, 2012. No new complaints at the time. The EMG was normal. He did not believe you were disabled. He continued you on therapy. He saw no evidence of nerve problems. The only symptoms were subjective - not represented by any abnormal exam finding. Dr. Sagerman has also been deposed. I will summarize his testimony for your soon. His was more favorable, but still limited in what he related to the chain saw accident. Apparently he does not believe you presently have any symptoms relatable to the chain saw injury. Think about these issues. I will provide you Dr. Sagerman's summary soon." (Dulberg 001531, Dulberg 001533, Dulberg 001534, Dulberg 001535, Dulberg 001536) (POP 000195) On November 4, 2013 Mast requested a meeting with Dulberg. Dulberg took Barbara Dulberg, his mother, to the meeting. Neither Paul Dulberg nor Barbara knew what the meeting will be about. It is at this meeting that Dulberg was first informed by Mast that Mast believed Dulberg has no case against the McGuires. Mast made a number of statements which surprised Barbara. Mast claimed that juries in this area are very conservative and Dulberg can't win against an old lady. Dulberg disagreed. It was at this meeting that Dulberg first gave Mast permission to look into a settlement. (Dulberg 001531) (witness: Barbara Dulberg) The $7,500 offer was never discussed at the November 4, 2013 meeting that Mast requested to discuss the McGuire case. A witness at the meeting can confirm this. It is not possible to explain why Mast called the November 4th meeting to discuss the McGuire case with Dulberg if they already made an offer 4 weeks earlier and were waiting for Barch to reply at that time. On November 18, 2013 McGuire's attorney Ronald Barch contacted Mast. He claimed he has been given authority to make an offer for $5,000. (POP 000181, POP 000181, POP 001204) This was not an offer but rather a counter offer to Mast's original offer made on October 22, 2013 (POP 000192). Dulberg was informed by Mast in an email. Mast wrote: "In addition, the McGuire's atty has offered us (you) $5,000 in full settlement of the claim against the McGuires only. As we discussed, they have no liability in the case for what Dave did as property owners. So they will likely get out of the case on a motion at some point, so my suggestion is to take the $5,000 now." (Dulberg 001515) Dulberg answered: "Only 5, That's not much at all. Is this a take it or leave it or do we have any other options? ... I'm not happy with the offer." To which Mast replied: "Paul whether you like it or not they don't have a legal liability for your injury because they were not directing the work. So if we do not accept their 5000 they will simply file a motion and get out of the case for free. That's the only other option is letting them file motion getting out of the case." (Dulberg 001519) Dulberg replied: "I still don't get how they don't feel responsible for work done on their property by their own son that ended up cutting through 40% of my arm. Perhaps their negligence is the fact that they didn't supervise the work close enough but they did oversee much of the days activity with David. Just because Dave was doing the work doesn't mean they were not trying to tell their kid what to do. They told him plenty of times throughout the day what to do. How is that not supervising?" To which Mast answered: "Cause they had no say on how Dave did the work. That is what the evidence from all shows." (Dulberg 001519) Dulberg later replied: "That's their personal issues of control with their own son. I will testify all day long about the things they wanted him to do that he did do throughout the day. By claiming they had no control over the work dave did after all the preparation, money and time spent out in the yard yelling at him that they wanted certain things done in a particular way I don't see how they get out of the direct over site of the project because now that there is an injury they don't feel they had any real direct control over their own workers actions? This is ridiculous. Hans, they have to do better than claim they had no control over David that day. If that's the case why were they there watching the work most of the day? Even Bill had hands on doing some of the work and rarely let David go to long without checking and seeing if things were being done the way Carol and Him wanted it." Email exchanges from November 18, 2013 onward show that Dulberg was not happy with the offer of $5,000 and knew nothing of the Mast offer of $7,500. They also show he feels the McGuires are partially responsible for his injury. (Dulberg 001516, Dulberg 001520, Dulberg 001522, Dulberg 001523, Dulberg 001524, Dulberg 001525) On November 19, 2013 Dulberg wrote an email to Mast stating: "A while back you told me that the jury's here in this county are primarily conservative and that they know the only reason we are before them is for money. Not sure if that statement was meant to scare me or not but I do agree, they are, for the most part conservative and I would hope we should make it known we want money for damages, lawyers fees and the medical bills, etc... loud and clear. We should also make it known to the jury that the parties or their insurance companies have never even offered to pay 1 cent for any of the medical damage and that's why we seek the juries help in settling this dispute. Perhaps if the insurance companies would have paid for these basic things none of us would even be here. but they didn't and now yes after years of waiting I am seeking money to pay for the medical treatments, you as the lawyer and finally myself as I'm the one who has had to suffer the consequences of the Gagnon/McGuire choices on that day. I cannot believe that a conservative jury isn't going to award anything less than the cost of the medical damages and lawyer fees from them unless something catastrophic changes. I do see them being conservative as to what I will end up with at the end but not the real medical and lawyers bills. Even the conservative juries in this county are not so conservative that they won't give the base bills. The McGuires insurance is free to go after David for damages if they lose. Other than fearing a motion to dismiss the suit against the McGuire's insurance based on some false concept that because they didn't have their finger directly on the chainsaw trigger they hold no responsibility for damages. what are the real benefits of letting them off so easy? And I don't want to hear its because 2 parties vs 1 is much easier. Letting off the McGuires insurance for such a small amount is anything but reasonable and I just can't see any ethical judge in this county not keeping them in the suit all the way for a jury to decide whether they had any part to play in the days events and the level of responsibility they share with David for the consequences considering it was the McGuires project, their land, their choice of who did the labor etc. etc... When you advised me to seek a settlement with the McGuires insurance, I agreed to look at it only because they didn't have their hands directly on the trigger of the chainsaw and That you would get at the least the medical bills paid for out of it. I thought that was made clear in your office. I know you work on approximately 33%. Is 33% of 5,000 even worth the time and money you already invested? It's only $1650 for you and I'm sure your hourly fee eats that up rather quickly, I know mine did back when I had hands and arms that worked so I could charge." (Dulberg 001517, Dulberg 001518) On November 20, 2013 Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul, lets meet again to discuss. 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. Here, I deposed the McGuires, and they had nothing to do with how Dave did the work other than to request the work to be done. They had no control on how Dave wielded the chain saw and cut you. its that simple. We don't have to accept the $5,000, but if we do not, the McGuires will get out for FREE on a motion. So that's the situation." (Dulberg 001515, Dulberg 001516) Dulberg replied by email: "Ok we can meet. I will call Sheila today and set up a time. Please send me a link to the current Illinois statute citing that the property owner is not liable for work done on their property resulting in injury to a neighbor. I need to read it myself and any links to recent case law in this area would be helpful" (Dulberg 001515, Dulberg 001516) (Witness Thomas Kost) (memo of meeting: POP 000003) On November 20, 2013 a MEDICAL EXPENSE REPORT was sent from Mast to (opposing parties??) Pharmacy receipts without timestamps. (POP 000805 - POP 000865), Specifically (POP 000859 and POP 000860) On November 20, 2013 Dulberg met Mast at the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich. Dulberg's brother, Thomas Kost, also attended the meeting. In the meeting Mast used the example of Tilschner vs Spangler. He claimed that the McGuires are not responsible because Restatement of Torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois. Mast also claimed that the accident was not foreseeable by the McGuires and they had no control over Gagnon's actions. Mast also gave Dulberg a packet of other examples of case law. (Dulberg 000204 through Dulberg 000225 and Dulberg 000301 through Dulberg 000305) Thomas Kost kept a rough set of notes during the meeting. (Dulberg 001217) Mast claimed 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. Dulberg asked to read the depositions of the McGuires and of Gagnon before making a decision. It is not possible to explain why Mast called the November 20th meeting or what was discussed if Dulberg already agreed to $7,500. On November 20, 2013 Mast wrote a Memo to a person named "Jen": "We have a co-defendant that is not really responsible in this case and they have offered a nominal settlement of $5,000 in the case. I would like to accept it but I want to have a settlement memo prepared first to show how the money will be disbursed for the client to sign. Therefore, we will not need to call on the balances but we will only need to provide a settlement memo containing only any liens listed on the settlement memo. Can you please prepare the settlement memo for me as soon as possible so that I can talk to the client about the offer." (POP 001207) On November 20, 2013, shortly after the meeting, on the same day, Dulberg went to the house of a neighbor of the McGuires to ask if they witnessed what was happening on the property the day of the accident. He was looking for a witness that saw the McGuires actively participating in the work being done and supervising the work. (POP 000177)(Dulberg 001514) On November 20, 2013 lter in the day DUlberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I'd like to read David's dep before accepting the McGuire offer. Even after reading the McGuire deps and seeing how things easily get skewed in all honesty, I can't blame Carol or Bill for Dave's actions I just thought I was covered under their insurance. I know Carol & Bill thought I was covered as well irregardless of all the half truths in their dep." (Dulberg 001512) On November 21, 2013 Mast ordered Dulberg's deposition. (POP 000593) On December 2, 2013 Mast sent Dulberg's own deposition to Dulberg by mistake?. (POP 000176) On December 4, 2013 Dulberg received his own deposition in the mail. Dulberg again informed Mast he wants to see Gagnon's deposition. (Dulberg 001504) Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I wanted to review David Gagnons dep before letting the McGuires off the hook. And that word "foreseeable" in the McGuire suite... Well I suppose if I gave anyone a chainsaw and told them to use it, given enough time, an injury is foreseeable, very foreseeable just not hoped for. And the comment about people not liking friends who sue friends, um well we all should know other than entirely random acts such as auto accidents, train derailments, air plane accidents, etc. Etc.. That most of the time it's those we know who hurt us most often than not. and if it's serious we must be able to sue even if it is or once was a friend." (Dulberg 001504) On December 9, 2013 Mast ordered Gagnon's deposition (POP 000594) On December 10, 2013 Mast sent Gagnon's deposition to Dulberg. (POP 000175) On December 18, 2013 Dulberg wrote an email to Mast after reading Gagnon's deposition stating: "I read through David's dep. it's mostly lies with a few truths. Where should I begin or better yet where would you like me to begin? Almost everything he said was made up, from which end of the branch I was holding, at who's direction I was doing it under and even as to why I was even there on the McGuires property, etc... Not to mention the nonsense of $10,000. ... As far as the McGuires are concerned give me a call." (Dulberg 001500) On December 17, 2013 Mast wrote the following memo after speaking with Dulberg by phone: "On December 18, 2013, I called Paul today after and email and we had a long discussion about the McGuire's liability and he seemed to concede and understand that probably based on the testimony there is nothing we can prove against the McGuire's and he is willing to take their $5,000 settlement offer." (POP 000884) Evidence demonstrates that Dulberg disagreed with the $5,000 offer from first hearing about it on Nov 18 until finally agreeing on December 18th. The $7,500 offer was not mentioned once during these Mast-Dulberg exchanges. The entire discussion between Dulberg and Mast from November 18, 2013 to December 17, 2013 was in terms of choosing between two options: Accept the $5,000 offer or get nothing. On December 26, 2013 Mast contacted McGuire's attorney Barch to inform him that they would accept the $5,000 offer. (POP 000670) 75.On January 9, 2014 Defendants Carolyn McGuire and Bill (William) McGuire’s attorney Ronald A. Barch sent a NOTICE OF MOTION that on the 22nd day of January, 2014, at 9:00 o’clock A.M. “.... and then and there present: Defendant Bill McGuire and Defendant Carolyn McGuire’s Motion for Good Faith Finding and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice; At which time and place you may appear, if you so desire.” The NOTICE OF MOTION was sent to the Plaintiff’s attorney Defendant Hans Mast at the correct address but the NOTICE OF MOTION sent to Defendant and Cross-Defendant David Gagnon’s attorney Perry A. Accardo was addressed to the previous named Law Firm at the Law Firms’ previous address. (Please see Exhibit HH as POP 000575-POP 000576 attached) On January 22, 2014 The Judge approved a motion by the McGuires for a good-faith settlement. (POP 000988, POP 000989) On January 31, 2014 the final release papers were signed by Dulberg and mailed back to Mast. (Dulberg 001491) On April 14, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul. We've been talking this case over a bit at the office. As Ive tried to advise you during our several meetings, I do not believe we can adequately prove our case at trial. Its your word against Mr. Gagnons. Most times, that means we lose - as plaintiff. I don't think we want to invest the time and expense to get to that result. Im happy to try to settle the case for you, but it will probably be a low amount. So, I want to advise you now should you wish to retain other counsel to try the case for you. Please advise how you wish to proceed. I know this is not good news, but I have learned a long time ago, some cases just are not proveable - not because you are not credible, but because jurys demand more than we can give at trial." On April 14, 2014 at 9:31:50 AM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Thank you for the honesty. There is no doubt david cut my arm almost in half with a chainsaw. Even he admitted he was in control of it, so What part of the case seems most troubling?" On April 14, 2014 at 9:44:11 AM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "What is a small amount? Is it enough to pay for the medical expenses?" On April 22, 2014 13:01:02 -0000 (UTC) Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I know I said to just get the best deal you can but what I forgot to ask was if you or your firm had anyone else in mind that would take on my case with the appropriate resources and attention it needs to get a result worth going further. I don't mind sharing or switching firms if it came with your blessing." On May 16, 2014 13:23:02 -0000 (UTC) Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Know anyone who does bankruptcy?" On June 16, 2014 at 3:46:00 PM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Mast with Subject: Bankruptcy ? stating: "I spoke with David Stretch, a bankruptcy lawyer, about possibly going the route of Bankruptcy. He said if I have a pending a suit that it is considered a possible asset and may allow the court to hold off any bankruptcy judgement pending the outcome and that I would only be able to exempt 15,000 before the creditors get their share. He also said if all I default on is credit cards but keep up on the mortgage and basic needs all that can happen is a judgement will be issued against me and it goes on my credit report and it can be cleared later by filing. I know my personal financial issues are not your problem but I am to a point for the first time ever that I am stopping all payments to my credit cards and focusing on the house, food and utilities. Or rather I should say my Mom is thanks to the chainsaw. Does filing bankruptcy make any difference on your end and would it complicate anything? In your opinion what would be the better route, file bankruptcy now or just default on the credit cards and deal with it later? I added the contact info for David Stretch below" On September 23, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "My view hasn't changed. I think each time we've talked I've always tried to be open about my reservation to take this case to trial. I just don't think we have enough evidence to prove our case and to invest the time and cost and preparing for trial and moving to trial just in my mind does not make sense to me. I have to be very realistic about things and honest with my opinion. It doesn't do you any good if I do not feel strongly about the case. That's the very reason why I wanted to have this discussion. I want to give you the option of finding other counsel at this point if you really want to take the case to trial which I think ultimately will be necessary. I just do not believe strongly that defense counsel will offer much in the way of a settlement. Although I will ask him if he is going to make an offer and maybe that will allow you to make a better judgment on this." On September 23, 2014 at 8:25:03 PM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "First, I'm sorry that I'm not a better witness to help prove David cut me with a chainsaw. I was but a lowly printer/graphic designer my whole life and never asked for anyone's sympathy till now. Secondly, I'm sorry I must live among a bunch of potential jurors that you don't trust to just do the right thing. Thirdly, I'm most sorry for agreeing to lend David Gagnon a hand when he needed some help, I had no idea he was going to try and lop it off. Fourth, I'm sorry you don't feel good about pushing for a trial. I wish whatever mysterious evidence you seek would be shared with me becausewithouta video camera I can onlysay what I've seen from directexperience.And I guess in this case "me11 the victim isn't credible enough but the one wielding a chainsaw that hurt me is. A few questions from a laym0.n, How much could a trial actually cost? What, $50,000 $150,000 Does it even cost as much as a car? What number? How much would you hope to get for us in a settlement? How much could be expected if the trial does proceed and we have a favorable outcome? Hans, if your heart is not in this I'm sorry On September 24 2014 13:32:15 -0000 (UTC) Dulberg sent an email to Mast with subject: "Call me" stating: "Hans, My stomach is in knots again over this please call me On September 26, 2014 at 6:32:40 PM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Mast with Subject: "Bad night" stating:"Last evening I was in the hospital with the most severe migraine I've ever had. This morning I filed for bankruptcy with David Stretch. This afternoon I spent with my regular physician Dr Zaide doing a follow up from yesterday. And right now, I have to email you. All when I still have a slight residual headache and should be in bed. At first I thought the migraine was brought on by the medications I'm taking but it wasn't, it was brought on after our discussions. Now I can't prove that but it seems pretty obvious to me. Joke no pun intended there! That migraine made me realize I need the stress of this situation over with. All the stress on top of losing everything is too much and I'd rather live than die from it all before my body does something worse. My body is not reacting well and the migraines are getting more frequent and worse. Have you ever vomited at the same time as deficating while being in some of the most excruciating pain in your life? If not, neither did I till the chainsaw went through my arm. That's when the migraines became more frequent, stronger and faster coming on. And now for the first time during the day. Ever since I awoke this morning, all I can I think is the stress of it all is killing me more and more as the reality sets in and I just can't afford to care about it anymore. My health means more than some lawsuits and the lure of money. All because some idiot named David Gagnon forgot to tell me to move out of the way and he can't seem to admit it. Yes, after reading his deposition and hearing it was my fault I was pissed. In my anger I suspected all sorts of things. Including it being intentional especially after my discussions at his home only trying to get his homeowners policy number and him wanting money and threatening me for it. Yes, my arm and elbow were hurt from his stupidity irregardless if some dr can link the two together or not. Yes, there will be ongoing medical as a result of all this because it still hurts and doesn't work right. Yes, I am now disabled irregardless of what SSDI appeal goes because of this. Yes, I understand I'm screwed because of a system that allows one person to hurt another and even after a trial and judgement entered all they have to do is go file for bankruptcy in the same courthouse on the same day. Yes, it just took me almost an hour just to type this. Yes, yes, yes... but none of it matters anymore! Bottom line Hans... Do the best you can with what you got, I've got nothing more to lose or give. I need it all to just go away." On September 27, 2014 at 2:20:27 PM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I want the monies I owe back to SSDI for being found disabled because of David's crap. I owe SSDI another 30 grand so far because of this crap" On October 2, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Apparently Dynamic Hand Therapy has a lean that expired. It's for $23,900.00 and they said they will give me a 30% discount if I pay within the next few days or they could take me to trial over it. Colleen with their corporate office said she contacted you on Aug. 6th about this." On October 2, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul I'm going to try to Settle your case. No guarantees. But until the case could settle there's nothing I can do about the balances. Can you give me a copy of that bill. On November 26, 2014 Dulberg filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection Mast did not notify the court of the bankruptcy filing (in December, 2014??) On December 08 2014 15:31:29 -0000 (UTC) Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Just got a call from associated neurology because of the bankruptcy notice they received. Tried to explain that the leans on the lawsuit expired after 3 years and I really don't have any choice. They said they never heard of such a thing and are looking into the lean issue and will get back to me. On another note, Baudin's firm must not be interested because they never called me. Do I need to find a new firm or what? On December 8, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul, thanks for the update. Im not sure what you mean by liens expiring. As long as your case is pending, the liens will apply to any recovery. As for an atty, my thoughts are the same. I can try to see if they want to give us a settlement offer, but I don't think we will want to take the case to trial given the extreme risk versus the time and expense in trying the case." On December 8, 2014 at 1:06:53 PM CST Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Your risk...I just had to file bankruptcy because of that incident 3-1/2 years ago. I could no longer make all the payments to my creditors. I also have a disability suit because of it. I don't care about a settlement unless it's enough to drag David Gagnon through bankruptcy for his idiotic use of a chainsaw and made up story under oath. Gagnon sure showed his true colors when he was deposed, he just isn't a standup guy at all. Either way it goes, (settlement or trial) I'm not going to make anything near what I've already lost or what my future losses are going to be so it just doesn't matter. The only thing that would be remotely satisfying is knowing that David Gagnon had to go through a settlement or trial and lose, then find himself actually having to face bankruptcy. I can only hope he has enough assets that it actually hurts. On December 8, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "I don't see us having the same goals in this case. I think you should search for a different atty. Let me know if you want another referral. Thanks Hans" On December 8, 2014 at 6:00:50 PM CST Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "At first my goal was to get my medical paid for... That's changed because it's turned out worse than I thought... Now it's simply to get as much as we can and move on with my life... What are your goals in this case? On December 19, 2014 at 12:43:45 PM CST Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I have to wonder... Is it the fact that David Gagnon doesn't have a bigger insurance policy? Or perhaps that I didn't lose my arm? What is it that isn't good enough for your firm that they would actually drop a client they chose to represent? I'm betting in the end it's all about the amount of money your firm can make off of my injuries because I've done nothing to exaggerate or hide anything. Have a merry Xmas, now I'm late to see a dr and my arm muscles are in spasm from trying to type this waisted email as fast as I can" On December 19, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Here's the deal...they are going to be reviewing the case with a doctor. The doctor will probably say you weren't hurt that bad. So, even if they concede that Mr. Gagnon was at fault, they will likely not offer much on the case. How much, I don't know. But Im not interested in trying the case. I think it would be very difficult to win. So unless you want to work out a settlement, I think you should consider other counsel. Its tough to make these decisions. I know it makes it tough on you. But these decisions are the reality in working on such cases sometimes. The good news is that you have a chance to recover in a jury trial. It would be tough, but there is a chance that the jury will believe you. But it will take some time and expense to take the case to trial. If the jury believes your specialist, the damages could be good for you. But there are a lot of "ifs" and Im not prepared to undertake the risks at this point. From: Mail Delivery System Date: January 9, 2015 at 12:45:29 PM CST To: pdulberg@comcast.net Subject: Delivery status notification This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients was aborted after 0 second(s): * hansmast@comcast.net Reporting-MTA: dns; reszmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.68] Received-From-MTA: dns; resomta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.106] Arrival-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:45:29 +0000 Final-recipient: rfc822; hansmast@comcast.net Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 No such user here Last-attempt-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:45:29 +0000 Mast informed bankruptcy trustee Heeg that the case is valued at about $55,000. Email with Heeg. Heeg's valuation of case. On January 7, 2015 letter from Heeg to Mast On January 7, 2015 Mast faxed a letter to bankruptcy trustee Heeg stating: "At this point, the defense is taking a "no liability" position and therefore, the chance of recovery is uncertain. I believe liability will be extremely difficult. We have calculated Paul's medical expense related to the occurance as exceeding $60,000. To my knowledge, most of the medical expense is outstanding. However, my belief is that any eventual recovery will be much less." (Dulberg 002600) On January 8, 2015 SCHEDULE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY - AMENDED was filed with the bankruptcy court (bk doc 13-0) which lists the estimated value of Illinois case No. 12LA178 as $55,000. From: Mail Delivery System Date: January 30, 2015 at 3:20:39 PM CST To: pdulberg@comcast.net Subject: Delivery status notification This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients was aborted after 0 second(s): * hansmast@comcast.net Reporting-MT A: dns; reszmta-ch2-01 v.sys.comcast. net [69.252.207.65] Received-From-MT A: dns; resomta-ch2-13v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.109] Arrival-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21 :20:39 +0000 Final-recipient: rfc822; hansmast@comcast.net Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 No such user here Last-attempt-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21 :20:39 +0000 From January, 2015 until mid-March, 2015 Mast hurriedly tried to settle the Gagnon case for $50,000 but Dulberg refused to support The offer Mast was making to Gagnon on Dulberg's behalf. On February 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, HANS MAST sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul, Sheila is sending out a letter today with a copy of the Memo for you. Let me know when you get it." On February 19, 2015 at 2:33:44 PM CST Dulberg sent an email to Mast with the Subject: Re: Pre-trial settlement stating: "I got it... Why does your mail always arrive opened? Also, many statements in the memo appear inaccurate. Not sure if it really matters. I'd ask for more $ in the demand... There is no way what is written is enough" On February 22, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "I'm not sure what you're saying. I tried to tell you over and over again the nature in which the memo is written isn't important. This is just a memo to introduce the judge to the case. If there are different ways you want to say things I'm happy to do that. It's going to serve it's purpose perfectly" On February 22, 2015 at 6:20:52 PM CST Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "My case is "gross negligence" causing "untreatable, irreversible and debilitating harm" Never had a lawyer who needed me to help write or correct anything before. The SSDI lawyer pulled everything from the record and it was perfect. Yes, I would like to reword much of it because I wouldn't want anything used in it twisted later if we do go to trial. Yes, I understand that your firm won't back me but it doesn't mean I'm not going to take it to trial anyway. I need the wording to match exactly what I need should I go the distance. I can honestly say the dollar amount you listed I would never agree to. It wouldn't even cover my wages for the years in physical therapy yet the rest of my life. If I end up with a structured settlement where I have to chase this guy I believe we can always sell the settlement and cash out. Is that possible? On February 22, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Okay Paul I won't file the memo. Some would say that giving a client an opportunity to review a settlement memo is a good idea. In the past I have found clients appreciate reviewing these documents. I don't think you understand your case at all. To be honest. Just find an attorney who you like and we'll go that way. I was just trying to help. You obviously do not understand what I'm trying to do and that's fine. Let me know when you find one. Thanks" On February 22, 2015 at 7:14:43 PM CST Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Let's not be harsh, We have a couple of weeks till dr Kujawa's billing arrives. I agree showing me the memo is a good idea it's just not the accuracy I expected. I know I'm being confrontative about all of this but let's face it, my working days are over let alone a career I have been building since I was in high school. My dreams of family are over unless I have enough to provide and pay for the care of children and a roof. What's left for me? Facebook, scrap booking, crafts, etc... A life of crap... With ongoing pain and grip issues in my dominate arm/hand that are degenerative. This is as total as it gets for us in the working class short of being paralyzed or dead. I need someone who is on my side, top of their game and will see to it that I'm comfortable after all this is over. What I feel is an attempt to settle for far less than this is remotely worth just to get me off the books. I know you don't believe I'm hurt... I'm not interested in belief, I think the facts speak volumes above belief I question who's side your on? Your comments about believing David's deposition, etc... Hans, I have no degrees but I was better at my career in printing and graphic design than anyone I ever worked with who did. If I need character references from past clients, employers, coworkers, teachers, etc... I have an army of people who know I'm one of the most genuine, honest, dedicated hard working persons who takes responsibility for my actions. David on the other hand isn't a stand up guy at all. He couldn't even take responsibility for his actions not to mention his attempts at collecting from this, which I believe constitutes insurance fraud. Oh and I'm contacting the McHenry county states atty... I know too much time has passed since the threats but those threats were for a future time once all this was settled. If he attempts to collect or make good on his threats and if I end up back in the hospital I want everyone to know who to go get. I'm done playing nice with this guy and I can only hope I have an attorney who feels the same. I have to ask since you think I don't understand, what is it your trying to do? On February 22, 2015, at 7:20 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul I no longer can represent you in the case. We obviously have differences of opinion as to the value of the case. I've been telling you over a year now the problems with the case and you just don't see them. You keep telling me how injured you are and completely ignore that it doesn't matter if you passed away from the accident because we still have to prove that the defendant was at fault. While you think it is very clear - it is not. My guess is that seven out of 10 times you will lose the case outright. That means zero. That's why I have been trying to convince you to agree to a settlement. You clearly do not want to. There's only $100,000 in coverage. Allstate will never offer anything near the policy limits therefore there's no chance to settle the case. The only alternative is to take the case to trial and I am not interested in doing that. I will wait for you to find a new attorney. I can't assist you any further in this case. Just let me know." On February 22, 2015, at 7:42 PM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "To believe David's version of events you must believe I was committing suicide. Who in their right mind puts his arm into a chainsaw? I figured you would cop out again... Now I'm left wondering... How hard is it to sue an atty? And yes I am and have been looking for someone who will take this case... The issue of my word vs David Gagnons... Did he cut me or did I cut myself? Of coarse he cut me. Next issue please?" On February 22, 2015, at 8:23 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul, honesty hurts. I am honest to a fault sometimes. You told me at the start that David would admit his fault. That proved not to be true. Still your threats and putdowns don't change anything. Just find another attorney and we can part ways" On February 23, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Once I find new council, Are you willing to release all leans and fees you and your firm have for this case?" On February 23, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul I'm definitely willing to be reasonable and consider several different options. Typically how it's done is I will work with your new attorney on the details. But to have me release everything given the time and expense I've invested in the case without knowing what the final result is unfair. We have completed substantially 100% of the fact discovery. All that needs to be done is deposing experts and going to trial. But don't get me wrong I think we can work out something very reasonable. Typically any type of lien arrangement is done when the case is concluded. On February 26, 2015, at 7:42 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Please arrange for a copy of both the McGuire and Gagnon homeowner insurance policies be available for me to pick up by noon today. I will pay for copy fees when I pick them up." On February 26, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "I don't think I have any insurance policies in the file" On Feb 26, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Paul Dulberg wrote Then please have a complete accounting of all fees you feel entitled to re guarding these cases ready for pickup by noon. On Feb 26, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Hans Mast wrote: I'm not in the office today Paul. If the attorney needs information regarding this he can definitely call me tomorrow On Feb 26, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "l1m not asking to see you. I'm asking for a copy of the policy numbers and an accounting of all the fees your firm feels it's entitled to. Please have someone at the office print them out and have them available for pickup. Thanks in advance again" On Feb 26, 2015, at 8:25 AM, Mast sent an email to DUuberg stating: "We don't have the polls your numbers. I am in charge of the file and therefore no one else knows what is in the file. If you need a list of our costs you can call Sheila and ask her to have a printout of it." On February 2#, 2015 Dulberg met with attorney Saul Ferris. On March 4, 2015 at 4:23:11 PM CST Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Are you willing to sign a lean release?" On March 4, 2015, at 6:23 PM Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "And how much money is the lean for?" On March 4, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "It depends on what the recovery is. I can work it out with your new attorney. Technically it's one third of the recovery but obviously that's not going to work because your attorney needs to be paid for something too. The whole calculation is done at the end of the case. There's simply no way to do it until the case is settled and we know what the amount is" On March 4, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "If I have to get a new attorney in the 11th hour of this, The damage done to my case far outweighs your lean. If you sign off the lean I'll see to it your paid for your real costs." On March 6, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Saul Ferris sent an email to Dulberg stating: "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" On or about March 7th, 2015 the Saul Ferris Declination letter was sent via the US Post Office as part of a package from attorney Saul Ferris to The Law Office of Thomas J. Popovich P.C. by mistake. This package contained the Attorney Saul Ferris Declination letter, 4 depositions and all correspondence Mast/Popovich mailed to Dulberg via the US Post Office dated before February 26, 2015. (See Saul Ferris Deposition) On Mar 12, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul I will be happy to deal with any attorney considering your case directly regarding my lien. But not until they call me to talk. As is clear with your email and many others you do not respect my thoughts and/or knowledge about these cases and there is no point in continuing any further in dealing with an unsatisfied client. Find an attorney and I will talk to them about the lien." On Mar 12, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I have found several attorneys and none are willing to represent me as long as you hold the lean on this case and apparently it is not legal for me to finance their representation by other means. Respect for your thoughts does not constitute a breakdown in communications. Respect is earned through truth, hard work and results. I am asking for an honest brief to go before the judge. That is all. Earn my respect and you will receive the best recommendation I have ever given anyone." On March 12, 2015 at 10:36:25 AM CDT Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "I have done nothing to lose your respect. I have gone far above what you would get from any other attorney you just don't realize it or appreciate it. Instead you continue to focus on issues that have nothing to do with your case. You don't listen to my advice. Which is fine. You don't have to listen to my advice. But 9 out of 10 times you will lose this case for trial. As I told you before that is why the defense is never going to offer the policy limits. To settle the case you will need to take far less than the limits. But you don't have to you definitely can go to trial. That is your personal choice. In my view your case is not worth the limits given the issues we've already discussed. So I have done what I can do for you. We have I think $3000 in costs that we will be paid no matter who is handling Case. We have worked on the case for years without pay....but if it will allow you to find another attorney we will consider waiving Our fee unless your eventual recovery exceeds $100,000." On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Your cornering of me and my brother in your office, bullying me into signing off on The McGuires policy citing cases that have nothing to do with the agency clause in the homeowners policy, which clearly makes her policy accountable. You sir are the one whom told me that I would never see a dime from either case if I didn't sign that piece of paper before leaving your office that day. You wouldn't even let me sleep on it as I had asked. You said you needed the $5,000 settlement with the McGuire's insurance to help fund your costs for the case with David Gagnon. Then when the physical therapists tried to demand payment in full you told me and my mother that medical leans against lawsuits often expire before the case is resolved saying yes the medical providers can proceed in collecting funds from my assets. Meaning my home. Forcing me into bankruptcy. Then, after filing for bankruptcy, denying you ever said that to both me and mother and going on to say to us that filing for bankruptcy protection had ruined the case. All that followed up by getting a brief to review from you on the David Gagnon case that was of such a poor understanding of the facts are what lost any hope of respect I had. I am and have been trying to get you to be professional and earn that respect back at every step. If you had not taken advantage of my ignorance you would not be receiving this letter nor trying to squirm your way out of representing me today. As far as your costs and in light of your poor performance to date, it throws into question all of the work you have done on this case. Even the depositions you sat in on are in question. Do you actually think anyone in their right mind wouldn't see it that way. You may argue strategy as a defense for incompetence but since you sat in on the medical depositions and don't even know what medications I was and wasn't prescribed after almost 3-1/2 years on this case I highly doubt anyone will see your defense as viable. Exactly, What part of being harmed by both the McGuires and Gagnon through no fault of my own is 9 out of 10 times a losing case? Exactly what part of you manipulating me into a settlement for only $5000 was seeing to my best interests? Exactly how is lying in a briefing you were prepared to put before a judge is in my best interests? Exactly how is giving you chance after chance to correct yourself not giving you the respect you think you deserve from me? I can keep going... I have witnesses to all of this. It's not just your word vs mine. Bottom line is if you want out simply because you feel I have no respect for you then all of your fees are subject and any lean you have is subject. I'm giving you the opportunity to remedy this coarse of action you have chosen. Do you chose to be professional and do the job your capable of or do you chose to remove yourself for some made up reason. Our emails alone show there is no breakdown in communication. We are still communicating. This email proves that. So, unless you can explain your action to remove yourself from this case for some excusable reason I see no reason why you feel your entitled to being able to get excused from it at all. I put you to task to do as you agreed to and represent me to whatever ends this case comes to. Will you be professional and finish what you started? Damn these emails hurt to type... Wish you had it in you to go after the bad guy who did this and not your innocent client." On March 12, 2015 at 1:13:59 PM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Saul Ferris stating: "Hi Saul, Have you already mailed the documents or can they be picked up? On March 13, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Your motion was granted. Please put together all the materials you have concerning this case and notify me when they can be picked up. Please include everything, emails, notes, depositions, motions, recordings, etc.." On March 13, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul. I am seriously willing to work with you to get new counsel. But you have to understand that until our costs are paid we can't let the file out of our office because we invested all the time and money into the file. Your new attorney will surely know this...." On March 13, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Hans/Sir, I don't want my new attorney to even speak with you. And yes I have that right. You have your lean against this case and you removed yourself against my wishes. That lean is as good as it gets. Your guaranteed your share. Please Have those files ready and notify me when I may pick them up as I am limited on the time to hire a new attorney." On March 13, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "Paul, I'm happy to deal with your new attorney on our fee but we can't release the file until we get our costs paid back." On March 13, 2015 at 11:49:16 AM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Sir, Your fees are guaranteed. You have your lean. Please don't make me go before the judge and have the records subpoenaed." On March 1#, 2015 Dulberg retailed attorney Brad Bulke, who claimed he was willing to take the case against Gagnon to trial. On March 20, 2015 3:49 PM Dulberg sent an email to Balke with the Subject: "Missing Depositions and pre-trial settlement brief" stating: "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." On March 20, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Brad J Balke sent an email to Dulberg stating: "I'm picking up the file from Hans on Monday. I'm sure everything will be there. " On March 23 or 24, 2015 Mast gave a disorganized case file without pharmacy receipts and without the October 22, 2013 settlement offer of $7,500 to Dulberg’s new attorney Bulke. (I could not locate any pharmacy receipts with or without timestamps within this version of the case file. See April 2, 2015) On March 24, 2015 10:48 AM Dulberg sent an email to Balke with the Subject: "Re: Missing Depositions and pre-trial settlement brief" stating: "Were you able to get everything yesterday?" On March 24, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Brad J Balke answered by email: "Yes. I have the file. It is large. I'm going to start going through it." On April 2, 2015 Balke sent an email to Mast stating: "I didn't find your specials list (totaling $58k.) Do you have it?" (POP 000051 - POP 000052) Shelia Quinlan sent an email to Balke stating: "Please find attached the medical expense report of Paul Dulberg wilh attached billing. If you'd like it faxed as well, please advise. The originals will be put in the mail today to you." "Attachments • MER 4-2-15.pdf(15.56MB)" The document "MER 4-2-15.pdf" cannot be found anywhere and has never been turned over in the instant case. (POP 000050) ***(POP 001143) (Dulberg 005385) Mailed letter from Mast to Balke with medical expense report - Cover letter only this is missing the April 2, 2015 medical expense report. *** Special Note: (Dulberg 005385) Not sure if this was from the 2nd case file on August 17, 2015? Balky already had his version of the case file and the April 2, 2015 medical expense report sent with this letter does not exist anywhere and has not been turned over in the instant case. On May 7, 2015 Saul Ferris' office contacted Dulberg and informed Dulberg they now have received back in the mail the package mistakenly sent to The Law Office of Thomas J. Popovich P.C. On May 08, 2015 12:34 PM Paul Dulberg sent an email to Balke with the Subject: "Missing memo for pretrial settlement" stating: "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." (See Dulberg 002651 and Dulberg 002848 - Dulberg 002849) On May 9, 2015 at 4:32:54 PM CDT Paul Dulberg sent an email to Balke stating: "Hope you received 2 packages today" Dulberg’s memory is that the offer in the pre-trial settlement memo was $50,000 when it was shown to him. Email exchanges between Mast and Dulberg seem to suggest a similar amount. Also Heeg's evaluation confirms this. Bulke's later offer was also $50,000. When the document finally arrived in Dulberg’s possession the offer was inexplicably changed to "$135,000". The Saul Ferris declination letter has an address at the top of the letter listed as "..." which is the address of the law offices of Thomas J. Popovich. The Saul Ferris declination letter stayed in possession of The Law Office of Thomas J. Popovich P.C. until on or about May 8, 2015 at which time Attorney Brad Balke received a package, which ultimately came from Mast/Popovich and contained the now altered (forged) attorney Saul Ferris Declination letter. In the Saul Ferris declination letter the date Dulberg's injury had inexplicably been written as "January 24, 2013" even though Dulberg was injured on June 2#, 2011. The date of the letter was inexplicably written as "December 31, 2014" even though the meeting between Ferris and Dulberg took place on February 2#, 2015. (See Dulberg 002821 - Dulberg 002822) Sometime between June 9, 2015 and June 12, 2015 Dulberg refused to participate in a pre-trial settlement conference and fired Bulke. exhibit. On July 7, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Hi Hans, I need to know if your willing to take a cash payout to release your lean on my case? If so, how much do you want?" On July 7, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Hans Mast answered by email: "Whatever you need Paul. What is your thinking." On July 7, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I need to know how much it's going to cost to get the lean released" On July 8, 2015, at 6:59 AM, Hans Mast answered by email: "Just make me a reasonable offer. We're happy to work with u" On July 8, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "Morning Hans, As I'm not sure how much you invested, I'm not sure what's reasonable. What would you consider reasonable?" On July 8, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Hans Mast answered by email: "If your calculating our time it'd be a lot. But just give me what you can do." On July 8, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I can't guess... I want to make sure your paid for your out of pocket expenses plus something for putting up with me. I'm sure I wasn't the easiest to deal with. Just give me a number" On July 8, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Hans Mast answered by email: "$5,000" On July 9, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "I was informed all your entitled to is $1539.32 from Brad because you signed off completely on the lean and he already paid you for the rest. Is this true?" On July 9, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Hans Mast answered by email: "Yes. We agreed with brad to waive our lien...What is $1,500 I think he paid our expenses." On July 9, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Paul Dulberg sent an email to Mast stating: "How much did he pay you for the expenses?" On July 9, 2015 at 4:43:22 PM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Mast with the Subject: Re: Lean buyout stating: "Hans, No need to get back together next Thursday. Didn't know that brad balky holds the entire lean and paid your expenses. Sorry for the bother. Hope the rest of the vacation is wonderful" On July 16, 2015 Dulberg picked up the "Mixed Brown Box File" from Attorney Bulke after firing attorney Bulke. This is the first time the forged Attorney Saul Ferris’ declination letter arrived at Dulberg's house. (See Dulberg 002883 - Dulberg 002884) From the time Dulberg received the "Mixed Brown Box File" on July 16, 2015 family members of Dulberg took notes on what they were able to understand. Exhibit. (notes are from Dulberg 007893 to Dulberg 008708) On July 20, 2015 at 8:07:04 AM CDT Dulberg wrote an email to Mast stating: "I need your electronic case file for Paul Dulberg along with all paper files you have. I did get the paper files from Brad Balke however of the plaintiffs/defendants depositions I received sections are missing in each and there are no dr's depositions at all. Brad promises he turned over everything he received from you. Please collect all relevant information you have for this and notify me when it will be available to be picked up. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter," Sometime between July 16, 2015 and August 17, 2015 Dulberg sorted the 'Mixed Brown Box File" and separated the attorney Saul Ferris forged Declination letter from other case documents found in the "Mixed Brown Box File" and put it in a separate pile. (See Dulberg 002885, Dulberg 002888, Dulberg 002889, several other emails can be cited here but will require more time to find) On August 17, 2015 Scott Dulberg signed at The Law Office of Thomas J. Popovich for the 2nd Dulberg case file provided to Dulberg by Mast. This became known as the "Brown Jacket File", which is neat and orderly without pharmacy timestamps and without the October 22, 2013 document offer to settle with the McGuires for $7,500, and was turned over to Attorneys Randy and Kelly Baudin to be used in the case against Gagnon. (POP 000804) (Dulberg 002424, Dulberg 002425, Dulberg 004822, Dulberg 004823) On August 17, 2015 at 1:51:16 PM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Hans Mast stating: "Hi Hans, Thank you for another paper copy of my case file. Does this exist in digital form? Also, I will need the original audio recordings of the telephone conversations between yourself and David Gagnon you listed as Gagnon exhibit 2." On August 17, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Hans Mast sent an email to Dulberg stating: "We have obviously letters saved on our computer. Somethings are saved others are not. We gave you a copy of what we have. I will have Sheila send you a copy of the Recording of the telephone conversation." On September 11, 2015 at 1:35:46 PM CDT Dulberg sent an email to Hans Mast with Subject: "Voice tape" stating: "Hi Hans, Still Haven't received the actual voice tape/recording listed as gagnon exhibit 2. I can pick it up, please let me know when." Dulberg’s repeated requests for the audio recording of a phone conversation between Mast and Gagnon were ignored. In December of 2016 Dulberg gave both the "Mixed Brown Box File" and a separate pile of documents which contained Attorney Saul Ferris’ forged Declination letter to Attorney Gooch who scanned it in as part of Dulberg's documents in the instant case against Mass and Popovich. Gooch also received a case file from the Baudins and scanned it in as part of Dulberg's documents in the instant case against Mast and Popovich. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. Notes: add doctors 'deposition' interviews with forged certification pages that came from "Carrie Vahl" through Michael Urbanski missing emails from around december 2012 to march 2015. By changing the date of the injury Popovich is trying to change the meaning of the word 'accident'. ‘Accident' is changed from the chainsaw injury to malpractice injury. The letter now refers to a malpractice ‘accident’ which Dulberg claims he received on January 24, 2013. January 24, 2013 is the date of the Dulberg deposition. The date January 24, 2013 was chosen by Popovich because he was forging the letter in March, 2015. Popovich received the box of Dulberg's documents back from Saul Ferris on March 7, 2015. Ferris received it back on May 8, 2015. Popovich wanted to choose the malpractice injury date at least 2 years before the date he forged the letter. He did that because he thought the statute of limitations would already be over if the date was altered. This is why he chose a date 2 years and some weeks before the date of the forgery. He changed the date of the Saul Ferris meeting because he wanted to show that Dulberg met with Ferris just before he believed the statute of limitations would run out on January 24, 2015. (This would be just inside the red zone.) If he didn't change the date of the Ferris meeting, it would appear as if Dulberg let the statute of limitations run out before meeting Ferris or wasn't aware of the January 24, 2015 cut-off date at all. If sued in the future, Popovich will then claim Dulberg first became aware of a malpractice 'injury' on January 24, 2013. Popovich will claim that Dulberg met with an attorney about malpractice on December 31, 2014 (just before the 2 year limit) and he is barred from suing any time after January 24, 2015 (a date just before he doctored the letter).