Rebuttal Memorandum: Grievance Against Jeffrey Daxe, filed with the State Bar of Georgia, April 6, 2006 Exhibit XREBUTTAL MEMORANDUM: GRIEVANCE AGAINST JEFFREY DAXE, GEORGIA BAR NUMBER 213701 TO: ‘The Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia FROM: Christopher L. Moses RE: Formal Grievance Filed Against Jeffrey Daxe Georgia Bar No. 213701 "Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” - State Bar of Georgia, Comment to Rule 3.2 - To the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia, Greetings. First of all, thank you for taking this matter seriously, and for formally investigating Mr. Daxe's conduct. {As you have invited, I am now providing my rebuttal to Mr. Daxe's response. 1 find it appalling that Mr. Daxe can admit that he broke his promises, yet still contend that he did nothing wrong, Even more disturbing is that Mr. Daxe seeks an endors of such dishonest behavior from the State Bar of Georgia by requesting the Bar to issue an opinion that he did nothing wrong. Since Mr. Daxe seems to misunderstand the substance of the grievance, | shall attempt to clarify my position below. Mr. Daxe erroneously believes that the basis for the grievance is a discovery dispute. However, as indicated in my original grievance memorandum, the grievance has little to do with a discovery dispute. Page 1 of 11To the contrary, the grievance goes to Mr. Daxe's dishonesty. Namely, Mr. Daxe made numerous promises, which were deliberately broken. This led to the obstruction of access to evidence, which is a violation of Rule 3.4. Since Mr. Daxe does not seem to understand the difference between a dispute and an agreement, | have provided a chart that unmistakably illustrates the difference between a dispute (column "A") and an agreement (column "B' ‘A. DISPUTE ‘B. AGREEMENT Moses requests production of documents | Moses requests production of documents ‘Daxe objects to production of documents | Daxe agrees to production of documents ‘As seen here, if Mr. Daxe had objected to the production of documents, then there would have been a discovery dispute. Indeed, with reference to the second and third discovery requests, there was a dispute that escalated into a Rule 6.4 letter and various other exchanges that eventually led to discussions between Messrs. Pekor and Moore. However, with reference to the first discovery request, there was an agreement to produce the documents. In fact, Mr. Daxe expressly promised to produce the documents, and then broke that promise, Thus, contrary to Mr. Daxe's contorted explanation, the crux of the matter is Mr. Daxe's dishonesty, namely, in his numerous deliberately-broken promises. The grievance cannot be about a discovery dispute when there was no dispute (i.., when Mr. Daxe agreed to produce the requested documents). My position is simple. It is as follows: Page 2 of 11