![]()
3
The Receiver further asserts that one of Mr. Cochell’s clients, R. Allen Stanford, had no
right to file a lawsuit challenging unlawful conduct by the authorities and that, because he filed a
lawsuit for a client, he should be disqualified from acting as counsel. Id. The Receiver’s
argument is myopic and short-sighted. It is axiomatic that individuals are entitled to file lawsuits
against the Government for redress of wrongs. Counsel for the Receiver should recognize this
principle because one of his partners at Gardere Wynn represents, or represented Mr. Stanford in
the criminal case before Judge Hittner. The attacks on Mr. Stanford breach a fundamental
fiduciary duty, the duty of loyalty. As set out in the first page of the lawsuit, the case was filed
to preserve Mr. Stanford’s rights and avoid a statute of limitations problem. Barely three weeks
later, and after discussion by Mr. Stanford’s counsel with the government attorneys, a Notice of
Dismissal was filed reserving the right to re-file the case after the criminal trial. The issues
raised in the complaint were addressed to Judge Hittner in the criminal case. Regardless of one’s
opinion about the issues raised in the lawsuit, counsel had a duty to preserve his client’s rights.
For whatever reason, the record reflects that Mr. Baron has been unrepresented by trial
counsel since the beginning of the receivership. The record also reflects that, on May 15, 2012,
the Receiver argued that Mr. Baron would probably engage in vexatious litigation if he was not
represented by counsel; yet, a month later, the Receiver flip-flops and now claims that if counsel
is appointed, Mr. Baron will engage in vexatious litigation.
1
[Dkt. 928] (“retaining new counsel
would be a step towards ending the receivership in an orderly fashion (contravening Mr. Baron’s
apparent goal of driving the Receivership into administrative insolvency.”). As set out below,
1
Counsel does not plan to review the entire file of this case unless there is a need to do so in
litigating the underlying lawsuit. From a review of some of the Receiver’s pleadings, however, it
does not appear that Mr. Baron has engaged in vexatious litigation, but has reportedly hired
counsel and allegedly failed to pay them, or objected to their fees. Counsel is not currently in a
position to address the merits of these claims.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 997 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID 59621