20140722 followup with todd deshong

  • 239 views
Uploaded on

discussion with J. Tod

discussion with J. Tod

More in: Law
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
239
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ClosePrint From: David Pardo (dpardo@outlook.com) Sent: Tue 7/22/14 9:20 AM To: jtdeshong@hotmail.com (jtdeshong@hotmail.com) Dear Mr. DeShong, I would say the offending statements of fact are as follows: Statement #1: "In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo is the reason that Baker and his attorneys were sanctioned." Statement #2: "In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo broke his attorney/client privilege with Dr. Murtagh and gave confidential information to Mr. Baker." Statement #3: "Therefore, Pardo/Prado was being duplicitous in turning over confidential information to Baker." Statement #4: "But that is not the whole truth, either. Pardo neglects to say that he provided an affidavit on Baker’s behalf where he challenged Murtagh’s version of the events." Statement #1: "In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo is the reason that Baker and his attorneys were sanctioned." The problem with Statement #1 is that it's a mischaracterization of what happened. On May 27, 2014, the court sanctioned one of Mr. Baker's attorneys $1,000 for issuing subpoenas to witnesses without providing a copy to the side. The attorney said that a change in clerical staff was the source of the inadvertent mistake. When I received the subpoena, I complied with it insofar as I did not send to Baker any documents that stemmed from a purported consultation period in June 2012, but I provided documents that were not otherwise privileged. I am not a member of the California bar. Was I supposed to know California's unique rules of civil procedure better than Baker's attorney? So you can see why I might find your statement misleading. Sources: Dr. Murtagh's May 2, 2014 motion for sanctions, Baker's May 14, 2014 response, Dr. Murtagh's May 19, 2014 reply, and the court's May 27, 2014 order. Statement #2: "In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo broke his attorney/client privilege with Dr. Murtagh and gave confidential information to Mr. Baker." On July 10, 2014, the Court tentatively ruled that I owed an attorney/client privilege duty to Dr. Murtagh. It did not rule that I broke this duty to him, or that I gave confidential information to Mr. Baker. If your argument is that the judge ruled this on May 27, 2014, when she sanctioned Baker's attorney, that makes no sense. Why would she rule that a duty was violated weeks before finding that the duty
  • 2. existed? Further, Dr. Murtagh's attorneys have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths for months about this issue: that (1) I gave to Baker Dr. Murtagh's "entire litigation file," including privileged documents, but (2) that I also withheld privileged documents and created a "privilege log." (They argued the latter when trying to prove that a duty existed.) So which is it? Did I disclose everything or not? The burden here is actually on Dr. Murtagh to prove that I gave confidential information. The burden on you is to substantiate that assertion of fact, if you're going to make it in public. That burden stands even if it requires you to pore over the litigation record. I can't prove a negative (that I did not violate the duty), Mr. DeShong, but you need to prove the positive if you're going to make it. Sources: the July 10, 2014 tentative ruling in your possession; my June 27, 2014 declarations; Dr. Murtagh's June 17, 2014 motion for protective order and his attorney's declaration Statement #3: "Therefore, Pardo/Prado was being duplicitous in turning over confidential information to Baker." See response to Statement #2 Statement #4: "But that is not the whole truth, either. Pardo neglects to say that he provided an affidavit on Baker’s behalf where he challenged Murtagh’s version of the events." This is why I asked you if I discussed what I could and could not talk about in my declaration to the court. If I am only allowed to discuss my conduct related to the representation "to the extent reasonably necessary" to defend myself, it follows that it's not necessary to talk about it online - only in court. You need to know the rules of professional conduct to make sense of this, specifically Rule 1.6. But this is the reason why only some documents appear online and not others. Believe it or not, it's to protect Dr. Murtagh's rights and to abstain from violating my duties. I take my attorney ethics seriously, even in this adversarial context. I would disclose everything I filed if it was permitted. I don’t have anything to hide. Sources: my June 27, 2014 declarations Add-on statement #5: "Furthermore, if Mr. Pardo provides another affidavit in the appeal; he will indeed be challenging the “finding” even though he is not an actual “party to the litigation”." This statement is incorrect as a matter of law and is likely opinion, so I am not challenging it. It's just an FYI that some of your opinions related to legal issues can be easily corrected with research or, I don't know, reaching out and asking questions. You have my email address now. That's all. It would be an upstanding thing to correct your post in light of this new information. You don't need to worry about a defamation lawsuit, although I think the legal grounds exist. It would be a waste of time all around. Do whatever your conscience compels you to do. Best, David
  • 3. -- David Pardo dpardo@outlook.com From: jtdeshong@hotmail.com Sent: ​Tuesday​, ​July​​22​, ​2014 ​8​:​34​​AM To: David Pardo Dear Mr. Pardo, I will be more than happy to correct anything that I got wrong. Please tell me specifically what is inaccurate and supply me with the supporting documentation. And please, limit the supporting document to what is pertinent. I will not hunt through 50 pages of court documents. But I will not respond to bull points of questions. I prefer to deal with specifics. Again, I will be more than happy to correct anything that is not correct. J. Todd DeShong From: dpardo@outlook.com To: jtdeshong@hotmail.com Subject: Your recent post Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:43:19 +0000 Dear Mr. DeShong, I caught your recent post about the website that I put up, http://murtaghvbaker.wordpress.com. You made a number of factual assertions and implications and conveyed your opinion on the litigation. The latter does not concern me, but the former suffers from some inaccuracies. It's evident that you have access to the court documents. Therefore, I would appreciate a response that addresses the following questions: 1. Why was Clark Baker’s attorney sanctioned? 2. When was he sanctioned? 3. When did the court determine, based on the evidence then before it, that I owed a duty of attorney/client confidentiality to Dr. Murtagh? 4. Did the court ever declare that I violated this duty? If so, when? 5. In my declaration to the court, did I discuss the possibility that I might have owed Dr. Murtagh a duty, but that I was allowed to address allegations concerning my conduct as his purported lawyer "to the extent reasonably necessary" to defend myself against such allegations?
  • 4. 6. If the answer to #5 is yes, would that explain why only some documents appear online on my website, and not others? In the interest of mutual accountability, this email will be published on http://murtaghvbaker.wordpress.com. You may reply directly to me or publicly, your choice, but be advised that I may publish your email if it is relevant to the issues outlined above. Sincerely, David Pardo