IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., §
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §
MUNISH KRISHAN, §
Plaintiffs. §
§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
v. §
§
JEFFREY BARON, and §
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §
Defendants. §
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: SUR-REPLY TO STAN BROOME’S
FALSE, MISLEADING, AND FRAUDULENT
REPLY [DOC 478] AND AFFIDAVIT [DOC 478-1]
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:
COMES NOW JEFF BARON, and moves this Court to grant leave to file
the following sur-reply to Stan Broome’s false, misleading, and fraudulent reply
[DOC 478] and affidavit [DOC 478-1]:
A. AGAIN A FALSE AND MISLEADING ATTORNEY’S AFFIDAVIT,
AGAIN A FRAUDULENT ATTORNEY’S CLAIM
1. Mr. Broom asserts on page 1 of his reply [DOC 478] that:
“Baron states that his contract with the Broome Law Firm,
pllc was capped at $10,000.00 per month. This is simply
not true.”
2. Mr. Broom then swears in his affidavit [DOC 478-1] that:
“4. Jeff Baron signed an engagement letter with Broome
Law Firm, pllc. The engagement letter stated that
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 522 Filed 05/06/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID 18688
Broome Law Firm, pile would not invoice more than
$10,000.00 in fees in anyone calendar month. If the fees
in any one month were to exceed $10,000.00, those fees
would not be waived, but would rollover and be
invoiced the next month, or the next month in which fees
did not exceed $10,000.00.”
3. Mr. Broome’s assertions – sworn to under oath – are straightforward.
There is no ambiguity in his claim. Mr. Broome swears that there was no cap on
his fees. Mr. Broome swears he was authorized to work as much as he desired, and
the only limit was the amount he could invoice in any one month for “cash flow”
considerations. Mr. Broome swears that he was authorized to work as much as he
desired, and could “roll over” fees for as many months as necessary. Notably, Mr.
Broome does not dispute that he was paid $10,000.00 per month for the months he
worked, but swears his agreement with Mr. Baron did not cap his fees at that
amount.
4. Jeff Baron’s practice, as should now be clear to the Court, was to set a
fixed monthly fee cap with each lawyer he retained so that he could control the fee
obligation incurred in any month. The attorneys were paid at their agreed rates.
Stan Broome is no different. Stan Broome’s sworn statements to the contrary
are false, misleading, and fraudulent.
THE PROOF AGAINST STAN BROOME:
5. If Mr. Broome’s own original claim affidavit is examined closely, we see
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 522 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID 18689
that on page 3 of his contract with Mr. Baron (produced by Mr. Broome as
evidence) that what the agreement actually provides is:
2. BLF will not incur fees in anyone calendar month
that exceed $10,000.00 without obtaining the written
permission (through e-mail or some other writing) from
Client. Client agrees to promptly respond to any
notification that the projected fees may exceed this capped
amount in any calendar month, and give clear instructions
on how to proceed.
6. In other words, directly contrary to Mr. Broome’s latest sworn
affidavit, his contract expressly “capped” the amount of fees to be incurred in
any calendar month. The contract is explicit. “BLF will not incur fees in any
one calendar month that exceed $10,000 without obtaining the written permission
.. from Client”.
7. Since Broome drafted the agreement, any ambiguity is construed as a
matter of law against him. However, there is no ambiguity. The contract is clear
and explicit. Broome agreed to “cap” his “fees” not to exceed $10,000.00 in any
calendar month. This provision is distinct from the provision limiting per month
invoicing.
1
1
The per month invoicing limit for cash flow purposes is numbered “1”. The separate invoicing
provision states “Fees invoiced in anyone calendar month shall not exceed $10,000.00. If the
fees in anyone month shall exceed $10,000.00, those fees shall not be waived, but shall roll over
and be invoiced the next month, or the next month in which fees do not exceed $10,000.00.”
That provision, numbered “1”, is clearly distinct from the provision numbered “2” capping the
amount of fees which could be incurred in any one month.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 522 Filed 05/06/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID 18690
8. Stan Broome, wants to collect for more than the capped $10,000.00 fee
limit he agreed to. Accordingly, Mr. Broom did not disclose nor mention the
second paragraph of his fee cap terms, which expressly capped fees at $10,000.00
monthly. Instead, Mr. Broome mentioned only the first part of the fee terms,
relating to invoicing. Mr. Broome is an attorney, and his trick is a sophisticated
one. But it is still a trick. Mr. Broome’s affidavit is false, misleading and
fraudulent. His claim is based on fraud. There is no other word to describe it. Mr.
Broome is an attorney, and clearly knows what he agreed with Jeff. Broome simply
falsely represented the terms of that agreement.
9. Notably, there is a clear pattern with respect to ‘claims’ against Mr. Baron.
Attorneys worked for flat fees or capped monthly rates. They ‘aver—under oath–
various facts which, an examination of their own records proves to be false.
THE KEY ETHICAL ISSUES:
10. Mr. Broome feigns unawareness as to any ‘ethical’ violation on his part.
The issue is as follows: As was established in evidence during the January 4, 2011
FRAP 8(a) evidentiary hearing, Mr. Chesnin vigorously attempted to secure Mr.
Broome’s cooperation to substitute in as counsel for Broome. It was clear this
Court and the bankruptcy court were concerned with allegations that Jeff was firing
lawyers. An attorney has the duty not to work against their client’s interest, or
take steps to the injury of their client. Broome refused to allow substitution, and
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 522 Filed 05/06/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID 18691
insisted on filing a motion to withdraw. That was used to the detriment of his
client, as an express ‘basis’ of the receivership motion. Most disturbing, as
testified to in the February 4, 2011 hearing, the receivership motion was filed
less than 60 minutes after Mr. Broome filed his motion to withdraw.
11. It is simply not credible that Mr. Urbanik could prepare, and present his
receivership motion– based in part on Mr. Broome’s withdrawal– less than 60
minutes after notice of that withdrawal was filed. The circumstances evidence that
Mr. Broome had sold out his client, and was working in coordination with Mr.
Urbanik. There is no rational basis for Broome to refuse allowing Mr. Chesnin
(an AV rated trial lawyer) to file for substitution. The only apparent
motivation for Broome’s refusing to allow substitution was that Mr. Broome
desired, apparently to serve as grounds for Mr. Urbanik’s motion, to file a
motion for withdrawal. Broome was clearly under the ethical duty to avoid
taking actions detrimental to his client. He clearly breached that obligation.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Texas State Bar No. 00791608
Drawer 670804
Dallas, Texas 75367
(214) 210-5940 - Telephone
(214) 347-4031 - Facsimile
E-mail: legal@schepps.net
COURT ORDERED TRIAL
COUNSEL FOR JEFF BARON
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 522 Filed 05/06/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID 18692
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this document was served this day on all parties who receive
notification through the Court’s electronic filing system.
CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 522 Filed 05/06/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID 18693
