Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rebuttal to Response of Robert W. Bauer, TFB 2013-00,540 (8B)

Rebuttal to Response of Robert W. Bauer, TFB 2013-00,540 (8B)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by Neil Gillespie
The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) referred me to Mr. Bauer February 26, 2007. Mr. Bauer was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3). Mr. Bauer churned bills for his benefit until he bled me dry, whereupon he dropped the case. Mr. Bauer is the only reason I continued litigation in 2007 against Barker, Rodems & Cook. However this is not a fee dispute.

Mr. Castagliuolo admitted August 30, 2012 in a written response to Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel in TFB File No. 2013-10,162 (6D), that Mr. Rodems made an unsolicited offer to Castagliuolo to assist him in any future Bar grievance from me. From page 3, ¶1: “My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan Christopher “Chris" Rodems. Chris once remarked to me, unsolicited, that he would be happy to speak to The Florida Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me the way he did Bob Bauer.”

This evidence shows how the lawyer discipline process in Florida is subverted and undermined, here by Mr. Rodems, who’s misconduct is at the center of this matter, through an ongoing breach
of Rules 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d), and 4-8.3(a), where lawyer-adversaries conspire to, and engage in, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, to obstruct justice and mislead the Bar or its tribunal, to avoid discipline well in advance of any Bar complaint. This activity raises an immediate conflict between the lawyer-adversaries and the lawyer representing the
client. If the misconduct is not reported as required under Rule 4-8.3(a), the client is not being represented in a zealous, competent or diligent manner because the lawyer has a conflict with his client created by the offer of assistance from opposing counsel in any future Bar complaint.
The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) referred me to Mr. Bauer February 26, 2007. Mr. Bauer was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3). Mr. Bauer churned bills for his benefit until he bled me dry, whereupon he dropped the case. Mr. Bauer is the only reason I continued litigation in 2007 against Barker, Rodems & Cook. However this is not a fee dispute.

Mr. Castagliuolo admitted August 30, 2012 in a written response to Theodore P. Littlewood Jr., Bar Counsel in TFB File No. 2013-10,162 (6D), that Mr. Rodems made an unsolicited offer to Castagliuolo to assist him in any future Bar grievance from me. From page 3, ¶1: “My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan Christopher “Chris" Rodems. Chris once remarked to me, unsolicited, that he would be happy to speak to The Florida Bar on my behalf if Gillespie grieved me the way he did Bob Bauer.”

This evidence shows how the lawyer discipline process in Florida is subverted and undermined, here by Mr. Rodems, who’s misconduct is at the center of this matter, through an ongoing breach
of Rules 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d), and 4-8.3(a), where lawyer-adversaries conspire to, and engage in, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, to obstruct justice and mislead the Bar or its tribunal, to avoid discipline well in advance of any Bar complaint. This activity raises an immediate conflict between the lawyer-adversaries and the lawyer representing the
client. If the misconduct is not reported as required under Rule 4-8.3(a), the client is not being represented in a zealous, competent or diligent manner because the lawyer has a conflict with his client created by the offer of assistance from opposing counsel in any future Bar complaint.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Neil Gillespie on May 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP296200759May 28, 2013Annemarie Craft, Bar CounselThe Florida Bar - ACAP651 East Jefferson StreetTallahassee, FL 32399-2300RE: Rebuttal to response of Robert W. Bauer dated Feb-09-2013/stamped Feb-18-2013The Florida Bar File No. 2013-00,540 (8B)Dear Ms. Craft:Thank you for extending time until today, May 28, 2013, for me to submit this rebuttal.The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) referred me to Mr. Bauer February 26, 2007.Mr. Bauer was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3). Mr. Bauer churned billsfor his benefit until he bled me dry, whereupon he dropped the case. Mr. Bauer is the only reasonI continued litigation in 2007 against Barker, Rodems & Cook. However this is not a fee dispute.This complaint is not requesting a refund of $19,212 in fees paid to Mr. Bauer. My complaintagainst Mr. Bauer is well beyond mere money, we are now in the realm of unremittable costs.Currently my home is in foreclosure, I have no savings, and my only income is Social Securitydisability. I relied on the LRS, reposed trust in Mr. Bauer, and The Florida Bar. Unfortunatelythose parties violated that trust, and their obligation to me as a consumer of legal services.Mr. Bauer responded that my current complaint merely repeats similar allegations dismissed byThe Florida Bar in my 2010 complaint, TFB File No. 2011-00,073(8B). Mr. Bauer is wrong.First, my 2010 complaint sought a refund of fees, so that I could pay replacement counsel. Thiscomplaint does not seek a refund of fees. Second, Mr. Watson’s Letter Report of March 18, 2011closing the complaint in compliance with Rule 3-7.4(k) shows no consideration or adjudicationof any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. My 2010 complaint did not allege Ruleviolations. Mr. Watson’s Letter Report was clear: “Because the Bar only has the authority toaddress questions of ethics, the committee could not address any legal issues about which youmay feel concerned.” Thus, this complaint alleges “questions of ethics” by Mr. Bauer not previously submitted to The Florida Bar or yet considered by a grievance committee:Breach of Rule 4-1.1. Mr. Bauer is not competent.Breach of Rule 4-1.3. Mr. Bauer is not diligent.Breach of Rule 4-8.4(c). Mr. Bauer engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.Breach of Rule 4-8.4(d). Mr. Bauer engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.Breach of Rule 4-8.3(a). Mr. Bauer failed to report misconduct of other lawyers, Mr. Rodems.Mr. Bauer was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3) in litigating my claims.Additionally Mr. Bauer was not competent (Rule 4-1.1) and not diligent (Rule 4-1.3) defending acounterclaim against me, a vexations libel counter suit for which the LRS referred him.
 
Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel May 28, 2013The Florida Bar - ACAPPage - 2Fraudulent Representation and Bill Churning by Robert W. Bauer Breach of fiduciary duty to client Neil GillespieMy letter of March 28, 2013 to Gwynne Young requested investigation of similar allegationsagainst Mr. Bauer, “questions of ethics” raised by Kim Barry, a former Bauer client. In paragraph number 4 of his February 2013 response, Mr. Bauer stated:It is Respondent's understanding that Kimberly Pruett-Barry has contacted the Bar and disallowed any statements made by Neil J. Gillespie and attached as Exhibit "A" is anemail refuting that Ms. Kimberly Pruett-Barry is dissatisfied with my services.Exhibit “A” referenced above is Ms. Pruett-Barry’s email of “Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM”,copy enclosed. Subsequently Ms. Pruett-Barry emailed me Monday, March 25, 2013 6:13 PMrefuting her statement in Exhibit “A” provided by Mr. Bauer. Ms. Pruett-Barry wrote:
From:
"kim" <kimberlypruett@earthlink.net>
To:
<neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent:
Monday, March 25, 2013 6:13 PM
Subject:
Whatever you need from me!
 Neil!I had to back off from your complaint because we had to keep Bauer as our Atty,BUT NO MORE!! I will call Annemarie Craft first thing in the morning!I fired Bauer today without even having another Atty to represent us and yesit has been going on this long. He has failed to follow through on EVERYTHING,yet he has racked up a bill that we will never be able to pay.YOU ARE RIGHT IN EVERYTHING YOU SAY about Bauer following through onANYTHING and then when you ask him why something is not done it is ONE EXCUSEAFTER ANOTHER!I will be filing Arbitration throught the State Bar to get our fees back.I am YOUR witness, USE ME!Sincerely,Kimberly PruettA copy of Ms. Pruett-Barry’s above email is enclosed.Also enclosed you will find the documents listed below from Ms. Pruett-Barry’s lawsuit againstattorney Peter McGrath showing Mr. Bauer moved to withdrawal as counsel April 12, 2013.The mediation report shows the case did not settle and an impasse was declared on all issues.
 
Annemarie Craft, Bar Counsel May 28, 2013The Florida Bar - ACAPPage - 3The case shows “pending” status on the Clerk’s website. The “Register of Actions” or docket printed today shows Mr. Bauer stricken as counsel, and “Order on Motion to Withdrawal asCounsel” entered May 13, 2013.Barry vs. McGrath case no. 2012-CA-009323-O, Orange County, Florida1.03/06/13 Mediation Report. A mediation conference was conducted on March6, 2013. The conference resulted in the following: 1. The case did not settle and an impasse was declared as to all issues.2.04/12/13 Motion to Withdraw of Plaintiff’s Attorney, Robert Bauer.3.Register of Actions printed May 28, 2013.4.Orange County Clerk’s website shows “pending” case status.The foregoing court documents, along with Kim Barry’s email to me March 25, 2013 (enclosed),is evidence that Mr. Bauer is engaged in an ongoing pattern of misconduct, betrayal of hisclients, as stated in my letter March 28, 2013 to Gwynne Young, President of the Florida Bar:Mr. Bauer may have discovered the perfect crime: He represents himself to clients as aspecialist in attorney malpractice, and once retained, bleeds the client of funds in a “fakerepresentation” that is intended to break the client, and intended to protect the subjectattorney. This looks like a pattern of racketeering that is aided and abetted by other attorneys, such as Ryan Christopher Rodems, Eugene P. Castagliuolo, and CatherineBarbara Chapman in my cases.Today Donna McMahon of the Bar provided information for RFA 13-12396 by complainantKim Pruett was opened January 25, 2013 and closed May 21, 2013, with “no documents”. Alsoon May 21, 2013 I received email from Ms. Pruett-Barry with this message: (copy enclosed)
From:
"kim" <kimberlypruett@earthlink.net>
To:
<neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Sent:
 Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject:
Bauer
Hey Neil,Just wanted you to know that we FIRED Bauer, he is a SCUMBAG, charged us for stuff he never did, lied to us, never carried through with anything.Just got off the phone with Ms. Craft and went into detail about some of thestuff he did, she told me, actually BEGGED me to file a complaint.I am filing the complaint first thing tomorrow.Sincerely,Kim PruettHowever The Florida Bar does not show at this time, in response to my query today, a complaintfrom Ms. Pruett-Barry against Mr. Bauer.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->