RE: First Draft

As a point of reference, in the past 6 months we have commenced 3 actions against former attorneys who attempted to unjustly profit from our trade secrets. The attorneys were under the mistaken impression that a clients right to pick an attorney gave them and their follow on law firm the ability to poach our clients by interfering in our contracts. 2 of those 3 lawsuits were settled with our firm receiving compensation for the wrongs we suffered and the third one is in the infancy of litigation. To avoid such litigation, you are hereby warned that our 'process' for obtaining clients and our 'client lists' are "trade secrets" as defined under the restatement of torts (and under most State "Uniform Trade Secrets Act" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act and the "Economic Espionage Act of 1996" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Espionage_Act_of_1996 )

You are further reminded of your duty during your employment and post employment to keep our trade secrets confidential (remember the confidentiality agreement you signed). As a final point, I think given your short duration of time with us, our six figure investment into marketing you, your nearly 2 months of time working on Jawad (no revenue generation), our prior discussions with you about your substandard revenue, that you would be hard pressed to defend an unjust enrichment claim should you attempt to recruit (poach) our clients whom we spent a great deal of money recruiting, screening, and entering into contracts (retainers) with. Remember, you came to our firm a few months ago with no business, no clients, and only a few years out of law school.

Mat,

I am not looking for a fight on this and hopefully my actions have spoken to this. I have maintained throughout this process transparency and my willingness other than the schedule issue to make this as smooth as can be...even though I have never done this before. I am DC pending...I filed after the issue came up in the fall...that's why I went with that...

Some of my clients "love me" so I just want it to be neutral on the subject and if they were to ask for me I haven't foreclosed that option by saying I can't handle their stuff ...no "poaching."

I am discussing the referral arrangement with Neal as I cannot bind his firm to something...don't want to start a second round of WTF under the new boss...lunches at the Army Navy are something I want to do of my own accord...we need until tomorrow morning to rally on that...I have been trying to organize and prep files so you guys don't have any issues or "problems" with any files. Old saying goes "bridge builder" or "cock sucker"...only looking at future bridges....

V/r

From: "Mathew B. Tully, Esq." <mtully@tullylegal.com>
To: Eric Montalvo <montalvoesq@yahoo.com>
Cc: Steve Herrick <sherrick@tullylegal.com>; Greg T. Rinckey <grinckey@tullylegal.com>; Neal Puckett <neal@puckettfaraj.com>
Sent: Mon, March 1, 2010 3:24:55 PM
Subject: RE: First Draft

Eric,

I am not sure if DC rules apply here since you are neither admitted nor have an application pending for admission (hence, I think NY rules apply) but that is a story for another day. DC ethical opinion #273 states that "whether the lawyer will be able to continue to represent" is a valid issue to discuss in a letter to clients. The end result that we are looking for is a peaceful solution given my prior emails on this topic. The concern that I have is that I will be signing a letter giving you 28 clients without a mechanism for me to recover those clients should you attempt to solicit our remaining clients.

If I can get assurances from Neal and you that we will not have poaching then as a man and as a military officer I will proceed with your assurances and sign the letters as you propose. Those assurances will also go a long way to making me feel comfortable that we could maintain a mutually beneficial relationship post departure.

Finally, I continue to await your response to my referral arrangement suggestion.

Best,

Mat

From: Eric Montalvo [mailto:montalvoesq@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:59 PM
To: Mathew B. Tully, Esq.
Cc: Steve Herrick; Greg T. Rinckey; Neal Puckett
Subject: First Draft

Mat,

Please see attached. I would like to remain silent regarding my ability to service the client at the new firm. This language seems to run afoul of DC rules regarding this issue. I can avail the ethics section to determine...just think it creates issues were they do not exist. I also fixed language stuff as this will be directed to each client and you which you had already identified. I have cc'd Mr. Puckett to make sure we are all on the same sheet of music. My only question on second letter is whether you want them to send the letter directly to my e-mail? That's fine just want to make sure that's what you wanted to do.

V/r

Eric