OCT-15-2010 15:46

P.Ol

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR p~ BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

LEWIS KASMAN, a resident of the State of Florida,

)

Plaintiff,

,50 2010 CA 0 2614 7 XXIX _" -~

v.

Case No.

LEWIS R. SHAFER, a resident

of the ~tatG of Florida; REBECCA'A. FRIEDEN, a resident of the State of Florida; SHAFER COHEN LLP, a Florida limited, liability partnership,

Division

JURY

TRIAL DEMANDt5py ,,~tl RECEIVED FOR FILING

OCT 152010

SHARON Pl. SeCK

CLERK s COMPiROLLI:

CfRCurr CIVIL OIVJSIONR

Defendants.

______ ~----------------------I

COMPLAINT

PlaJ.ntiff, L8WlS KASMAN, by his attorneys, allege on

information and belief based, inter alia, on the investigation

of theit legal counsell except as to those allegations which

i

pertain to the Plaintiff, which are based upon personal

knowledge and belief, as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action by which Plaintiff seeks redress for

actions and inactions of his legal representatives and

fiducia~ies - his attorneys in an action seeking the dissolution

of Plai~tiff's marriage, dotermination of appropriate temporary

and permanent child support and alimony, distribution of assets,

creation of a parenting plan and all other matters within the

I

purview'of a dissolution of marriage - for their extortion of

I

Nicholas T. Steffens & Assoelates, P.A.

5571 N, University Drive, Suite 101 1 Coral Srriogs, [-'lorida 33076 (954) 323 -89561 F: (954) 301-63331 nick@Jltslo.w,com

Page I of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:46

P.02

fees, legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of

contract. The conduct of Defendants was so egregious that an

investigation is currently pending after a complaint was filed

with the Florida Bar, Attorney/Consumer Assistance Program. (See

Composite Exh i b it. "A" - the Flori.da Bar Inquiry form dated

,

2/6/10 $nd the Response Plaintiff filed dated 3/10/10.)

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction as the relief !

sought ~s in excess of $15,000.00.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to

Chapter 47.011, Florida Statutes.

PARTIES

4. ~ewis Kasman is an individual residing within the

I

jurisdiction of the court.

,

I

,

5. Defendant Lewis R. Shafer is a resident of Palm Beach

County, !Florida and does business primarily in Palm Beach

i

County, :E'lorida.

I

I

6. Oefendant Rebecca A. Frieden is a resident of Palm Beach !

County, ,Florida and does business primarily in Palm Beach

I

County, [Florida.

I

,

7. ~oth Defendants Shafer and Frieden are members of the

Florida Bar.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, I\A.

557) N. University Drive, Suitt: 101 1 Coral Springs, Florida 33076 (954) 323.89561 F: (954) 30)"6333111kkf~]lIblaw,cllm

Page 2 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:46

P.03

OCT-15-2010 15:47

P.04

OCT-15-2010 15:47

P.05

8. Defendant, Shafer Cohen LLP ("Se LLP") is a limited

liability partnership pursuant to Florida law and doing business

in the State of Florida.

9. Defendant se LLP's primary place of business is located

in Boca Raton, Florida.

10. ~t all times relevant herein, Defendant Lewis R. Shafer

was a partner and Defendant Frieden was an associate at se L1P.

FACTUAL BASI S FOR CLAIMS

11. IOn or about March 12, 2008, Lewis Kasman ("Kasman")

i

signed ~ Retainer and Fee Agreement ("Contract") with SC LLP

with Jo,:$.n Schiff as the guarantor (See Exhibit I'B'I.) i

12. ~efendant Lewis R. Shafer ("Shafer"), a member of the

Florida:Bar and partner in the firm, signed the contract on

behalf of se LLP. The contract noted that legal work mcty also

be done 'by Defendant Rebecca A. Frieden, an associate of the

firm.

13. Plaintiff I smother, Joan schi f f ("Schiff") personally

I

guaranteed the contract. Further, it is without dispute that

I

Schiff was going to pay the retainer as Shafer and SC LLP

understood Kasman had little funds or ability to make money at

I I I

the timE;j.

I

<

14. Schiff paid to SC LLP $95,000.00 (in installments) over

the lif~ of the repres0ntation.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates. P.A.

5571 N, University Driv~, Suite 101 I Coral Springs, Florida 33076 (954) 323 -8956 J F: (954) 301-6333 I nie.:k@n!slaw,com

OCT-15-2010 15:47

,

P.OG

15. At the time Shafer and SC LLP were retained, Plaintiff

had paried ways with attorney Barry G. Roderman and his law

.

office after he misrepresented to the tribunal about the

existen~e of a court order that resulted in the Plaintiff's

illegal incarceration of nine days in the Palm Beach County

Jaill.

16. Plaintiff at the time was a cooperating witness for the

United States Attorney's Office (E.D.N.Y.) and was in protective

I

custody by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") as

.

Plainti~f was an associat~ of the Gambino Organized Crime Family

and had 'no personal funds to pay neither a retainer nor costs I

I

associa~ed with the dissolution of marriage proceeding.

17. ~t the time Plaintiff retained Defendants it was well

known t~at Plaintiff's now Former Wife was represented by Weiss,

,

Handler.,' Angelos and Cornwell, P. A. Henry B. Hand Ler

i

("Handl~ril) is the managing partner of the Weiss, Handler law

firm.

18. ~rior to inducing Plaintiff to sign a contract, Defendant

Shafer ~iscu~sed the personal issues regarding his dissolution i

of marr{age2 (which included Dcf0nd~nt Shafer seeking an

injunct~on against violence against his wife, Monique Shafer3)

,

J This ma~ter is subject of a pending Federal lawsuit. 2 15th Judicial Circuit COG~ No. 502007DR003054XXXXSB 15th Judicial CiL"Ql)it Ca s e NQ. 50200SDR003SF(XXXXSB Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive. Suite 101 I Coral Springs. florida 33076 (954) 323 -89561 r, [(54)301-63331 nkj..;(~l]ntslaw.colTI

Page 4 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:47

P.07

wi th Handler. (See Exhibit "C" - Response of Lewis R. Shafer to

,

Complai~t of Lewis Kasman dated March 9, 2010.)

19. ,During the initial consultaLion with Defendants Shafer

I

and Frieden and another associate of the firm, Ronald S.

Nisonson, Esq. and his office manager, Lisa Bosworth, Defendants

,

did not1disclose this obvious conflict to rlaintiff or Schiff,

the gua~antor. At the consultation, Shafer boasted that "I'm

the captain of this ship now!" referring to the dissolution of

marriag~ action.

20. Upon entering into their agreementl Defendants w~re

,

tasked ~ith dealing with the repr.ehensible amounts of discovery

the Wei~s, Handler law firm was attempting to obtain from

Plainti:!ff.

I

that th~ Plaintiff

I

The undisputed aim of t h i.s discovery was to "prove"

was

hiding money.

However,

it is also

I

undispu~ed that Lf the Weiss, Handler firm did find any of these

I

non-exi~tent assets, the assets would have to be given to the

,

United ~tates of America as they would have been considered the

fruits of the Gambino Organized Crime Family.

i

21. ~his fact alone created a justification to stop the

depositions the Weiss, Handler law firm were attempting t o t a ke i

in New York. However, when Defendants attempted to have a

protect~ve order entered, their efforts were thwarted.

, ,

22. It is worth noting that the Honorable Martin H. Colin

permitt~d this excessive and needless discovery to continue and Niehoi;lti T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive, Suite 101 1 Coral Springs. Florida 33076 (954) 323 .89561 F: (954) 301·63331 nick@ntslflw.com

Page 5 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:47

P.OB

Defenda~ts failed to apprise Plaintiff of his personal conflict

with the Weiss, Handler .law firm (See Ba8z v. Koelemij, 960

So.2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)).

23. befendants knew or should have known that Handler and the

,

Weiss, Handler firm had and continues to have a close personal

and financial relationship with Judge Colin. These relations

I

should ~ave resulted in an automatic recusal or, at minimum,

DefendaJts advising Plaintiff of same. Defendants failed to do

so.

,

24. ~ven after Judge Colin permitted the discovery to

continu~, Defendants attempted to negotiate having the

depositions taken by phone, to save costs. (See Exhibit lTD".)

25. When the Weiss, Handler firm apparently disagreed with

doing phone depositions, Defendant Shafer booked himself and his

girlfriend/client plane tickets, a hotel room (including a

I I I

weekend!stay) and limousine service in New York City.

I i

26. ~hile in New York, Defendant Shafer met with the

Plainti£f at the FBlis New York offices and presented him with

I

I

regurgitated documents that Plaintiff already had copies of

I

through ie-mail. Further, he attended a few discovery-based

depositions. Plaintiff asserts this took, at most, six hours.

I

27. puring his time in New York, Defendants billed Plaintiff

for ovei 39 hours (See Exhibit "E".)

NichC)la~ T. Stcfrcns & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive, Suite; 101 1 Coral Springs. Florida 33076

(954) 323 -89561 J7: (954) 301.63331 nick@ntslaw.com

OCT-15-2010 15:48

P.09

28. Defendants charged Plaintiff for 12 hours of service on

I

April 2~, 2010 to travel from south Florida to New York by plane

and meet with the client.

29. Defendants charged Plaintiff for another 12 hours of

service on April 28, 2010 to attend throe depositions in New

York City.

30. :Defendants charged Plaintiff for 15 hours of service on

Apri1 29, 2010 to take record custodian depositions of three

entitie$ in Long Island, New York.

,

31. iHe admitted to asking "f ew or no" questions at; the

I

I

I

depos i t i.ons . (See Exhibit "e".)

i

32. ~t is worth nothing that Defendant Shafer cJ.aimed he I

I

needed to attend since tha Weiss, Handler firm were sending

counsel:to attend personally. Of cour.se, Defendants pr.eviously

I

acknowl~dged the ability to appear by telephone and did not take

i

advanta~e of this option.

I i

33. rhe reason for this is obvious - a trip to New York

resultesI in the 39 hours of bil]_able time.

I

34. For the majority of the time billed, Defendant Shafer was

I

really ¢avorting with his girlfriend/client and spending

I

Plaintitf's money.

I

i

35. hefendant Shafer did not give Plaintiff a discount due to

the fac~ that the room was being used to board his

girlfriend/client.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive. Suite 101 I Coral Springs, Florida 33076 (954) 323.89561 P; (954) 301·(,3331 rlj(:k@l1tslnw.com

Pag(! 7 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:48

P .10

36. When Shafer was not busy excessively billing the

Plaintiff for unnecessary or fruitless work, his associate,

Rebecca A. Frieden billed him at a simj_lar pace and for similar

I I

purposes - the financial gain of the firm.

37. :After the representation was concluded, which Defendant

Shafer bj.lled 2.5 hours to attend, Def8ndunt Frieden advised the

Florida Bar that she did not know whether Plaintiff's case was

un original dissolution of marr.iage case or a post-judgment

matter. (See Exhibit "F" - Letter from Rebecca A. Frieden to the

FloridaiBar.) In total, Defendant Frieden billed Plaintiff for

I

I I

78 hour$l.

I

38. iAs a result of the inept handling of Plaintiff's

I ,

dissolution of marriage case, Plaintiff was forced to borrow

I

I

over $175,000.00 from Schiff to retain highly regarded attorney

Joel M.:Weissman. Mr. Weissman spent many hours extricating

I

I

Plainti~f from the morass Defendants left him in.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I - LEGAL MALPRACTICE

I

Plai~tiff, Lewis Kasman, sues all Defendants for legal

malpractice and states,

< <

39. <Plaintiff re-alleges all pr8vious allegations and

conclusions.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, .P.A.

5571 N_ University IJrive, Suite 101 1 Coral Springs, florida ;33076 (954) 323 .89561 F: (954) 301-63331 nick@mslaw,com

Page 8 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:48

P.ll

40. As a result of the attorney-client relationship between

Plaintiff: and Defendants, Defendants owed Plaintiff various

duties, • including:

a Ithe du·ty of .. care, wh~ch re' ~n tt t h th

. _ ~. gUlres ~ a orney 0 ave e

~nowledge and skill necessary to confront the

~ircumstances of each case;

b. ~he duty to represent and handle the client's affairs with the utmost degree of honesty, forthrightness, :10ya1 ty and fidelity;

I

c. !the duty of loyalty, including the obligation to fully land fairly disclose any actual or potential conflicts of iinterest; and

I

d. fiduciary duties, including the duty to make :Cu.ll and ifair di5clo~ure of material facts.

41. 'Rather than honor these duties owed to Plaintiff,

Defendabts breached their duties to Plaintiff by, inter alia:

I

a. :Failing to advise Plaintiff of Shafer's personal conflict io f interest.

b. ~Failing to advise Plaintiff about Shafer's own :dissolution of marriage and domestic violence proceedings Ithat provided ~ total distraction from Plaintiff's high !profile and time-consuming Ca~e.

c. Failing to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff as a result of the irreconcilable conflict and attaining the knowledge that Former Wife's counsel was using personal information regarding Shafer against him.

d. ISpending thousands of the Pl~intiff's dollars on a trip .to New York that he had previously advised the Court was .no t necessary.

I

e. !Taking his girlfriend/client on the same trip and billing ;Plaintiff for her travel to New York and accommodations ~in a four-star hotel.

,

f.

!Excessively billing the Plaintiff for the New York trip !and on other occasions.

,

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive, Suite 101 I Coml Springs. FlOrida 33076 (954) 323 ~89561 F: (95tl) 301-6333 I nick@nlslnw.com

Page 9 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:48

P .12

g.

'Failure to disclose the well-known-to-attorney conflict ibetween the Former Wife's law firm and the presiding [Judge on the case, the Honorable Martin H. Colin.

h.

Failing to Qversee his law firm staff, specifically 'Defendant Frieden who did not know if she was working on an original dissolution of marriage proceeding or a postjudgment matter (see attached E~hibit "F".)

42.

:By reason of th8 foregoingf Plaintiff has been damaged in

a sum to be determined in accordance wi th ev i.derice adduced at

trialf but believed to be not less than Five Hundred Thousand

Dollars, ($500, 000. 00. )

I

i

43. :By reason of Defendants' malpractice they are required to i

return ~ll compensation for services rendered. !

,

44. ~he acts of Defendants constitut~ a conscious, malicious

I

and int~ntional disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff

specifically reser.ves his right to amend this complaint Lo plead

punitiv~ damages as required by Florida Law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully reqU8sts Lhat this

I

CQurt t+ke jurisdiction of Count I and render judgment against I

,

the Def~ndants, jOintly and s8verally, in his favor in an amount

to be determined at trial but not less than Five Hundred

Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) in compensatory damages and !

i

punitive damages, award them interest and costs and such other

relief ~s the Court deems just and equitable.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Assoclates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive. Suise 101 I Coral SjJdn~, F1urida.33076 (954) 323 ·89561 J7: (954) 301.6333Inic].;.@nts1aw.com

Page 10 oj' 19

OCT-15-2010 15 49

P .13

COUNT II - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Pl,intiff, Lewis Kasman, sues all Defendants for breach of

fiduciafY duty and states,

45. :Plaintiff r o+a l l eqe s all previous a] legations and

conclusions.

46. As a result of the fiduciary relationship between

Plaintiff and Defendants, and the tremendous amount of trust and

confidence reposed in Defendants by Pl~intiff, Defendants owed

;

certain! fiduciary duties, including a duty to act with the

utmost degree of honesty, forthrightness, loyalty and fidelity.

I

47. !Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by, inter aFia:

a. !Failing to advise Plaintiff of Shafer's personal conflict iOf interest.

b. Failing to advise Plaintiff about Shafer's own dissolution of marriage and dOlnestic violence proceedings 'that provided a total distraction from Plaintiff's high 'profile and time-consuming case.

,

c. :Failing to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff as a 'result of the irreconcilable conflict and attaining the knowledge that Former Wife's counsel was using personal information regarding Shafer against him.

d. Spending thousands of the Plaintiff's dollars on a trip to New York that he had previously advised the Court was not necessary.

e. Taking his girlfriend/client on the same trip and billing Plaintiff for her travel to New York and accommodations in a four-star hotel.

f. Excessively billing the Plaintiff for the New York trip ,and on other occasions.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive. Suite 101 I Coral Springs, Floriu!133076 (954) 323 ~89561 P; (954) 301·6333 Inicbjllnt:;hlw.com

PHge 11 of)9

OCT-15-2010 15:49

P .14

g. iFailure to disclose the well-known-to-attorney conflict :between the Former Wife1s law firm and the presiding Judge on the case, the Honor~blG Martin H. Colin.

h. :Failing to oversee his law firm staff, specifically Defendant Frieden who did not know if she was working on ian original dissolution of marriage proceeding or a postjudgment matter (see attached Exhibit "P".)

48. :By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in

I

a sum tf be determined in accordance with evidence adduced at

trial, hut believed to be not less th~n five Hundred Thousand

Dollars ($500,000.00.)

,

:rn addition, by reason of Defendants being faithless fiduciaries, they a.re required to retLlrn all compensation for

49.

service~ rendered.

I

SO. !The acts of Defendants consti rut e a oon s c i.ou s , malicious

and int~ntional disregard of Plaintiffls rights. Plaintiff

, ,

i

spec t f,t?a.lly ne serve s his r..i.ght to amend this complaint to plead

:

punitivk damages as required by Floridd Law.

I I

WHE~FORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court

I

take jUfisdiction of Count II and render judgment against the

Defenda~ts, jointly and severally, in his favor in an amount to

be detetmined at trial but not less than Five Hundred Thousand

Dollars: ($500,000.00) in compensatory damages and pun i ti ve i

damagesj award them interest and cosLs and such other relief as

I

the Coutt deems just and equitable.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. Univc:r::;ily Drive, Suite 10 I 1 Coral Springs, [-lorida 33076 (954) 323 -89561 F; (954) 301-633J 1 nid~@ntsl(lw.com

Page 12 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:49

P .15

COUNT III - BREACH OF CONTRACT

Plaj~tiff, Lewi.s Kasman sues all defendants for breach of

,

contract and states,

51. :Plaintiff re-alleges all previous allegations and

conclusions.

52. 'Defendants expressly and impliGdly represented to

Plaintiff that they would represent Plaintiff in connection with

all propeedings in connection with the di~solution of marriage

I I I

action, ~that they had the skill necessary to represent i

Plaintiff, that they would exercise that degree of care skill i

i

and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the local legal

,

communi ty and that the Defendants wou l d represent P La.i nt.I ff with

honestYf forthrightness, loyalty and fidelity to Plaintiff.

53. Defendants breached their contractual duties to Plaintiff

bYf intfr alia:

,

a. Failing to advise Plaintiff of Shafer's personal conflict io f interest.

I

b. iFailing to advise Plaintiff about Shafer's own 'dissolution of marriage and domestic violence proceedings lthat provided a total distraction from Plaintiff's high profile and time-consuming case.

I

c. IFailing to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff as a

:result of the irreconcilable conflict and attaining the knowledge that Former Wife's counsel was using personal ,information regarding Shafer against him.

d. Spending thousands of the Plaintiff's dollars on a trip to New York that he had previously advised the Court was not necessary.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive, Suite 101 1 Coral Spl'ings, Flol'ida 33076 (954) 323 .89561 [0': (954) 301·63J] 1 nick@ntslaw.com

Page 13 01' 19

OCT-15-2010 15:49

P .16

e. ~aking his girlfriend/client orl the same trip and billing iPlaintiff for her travel to New York and accommodations 'in a four-star hotel.

f.Excessively billing the Plaintiff for the New York trip 'and on other occasions.

g. Fat.Lu re to disclose the well~known-to-attorney conflict 'between the Former Wife's law firm and th~ presiding :Judge on the casef the Honorable Martin H. Colin.

h. ,Failing to oversee his law firm staff, specifically ~Defendant Frieden who did not know if she was working on 'an original dissolution of m~rriage proceeding or a postjudgment matter (see attached Bxhibit "F".)

I

,

54. :Ey reason of the foregoing, Pl.aintiff has been damaged in

I I

a sum to be determined in accordance with evidence adduced at

trj.al, but believed to be not less than Five Hundred Thousand I

Do 11 a r 5! ($ 500 , 000 . 00 . )

55. !In addition, by reason of Defendants being faithless

I

fiduciaiies, they are required to return all compensation for

,

services rendered.

56.

'The acts of Defendants constitute a conscious, malicious

,

!

and int~ntional disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff

specifi~allY reserves his right to amend this complaint to plead

punitiv~ damages as required by Florida Law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests tha.t this

Court take jurisdiction of Count III and render judgment against I

I

I

the Def~ndants, jointly dnd severally, in his favor in an amount

I I

to be d~termined at trial but not less than Five Hundred !

,

Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) in compensatory damages and

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive. Suite 101 I Coral Springs, Florida 33076

(954) 323 ft8956 I F: (954) 301-633:1 IlIick@ntslaw,com

OCT-15-2010 15:50

P .17

punitiv, damages, award them interest and costs and such other

relief as the Court deems just and equ:i t.ab l.e .

COUNT IV - UNJUST ENRICHMENT

I

Plaintiff, Lewis Kasman sues all defendants for unjust

enrichm+nt and states,

I

57. !Plaintiff re-alleges all previous allegations and

conclusions.

I

58- Plaintiff, through Schiff, conferred a benefit - a large

retainet - to the Defendants, which the Defendants gladly

I

accepte~ and retained, and the ~etenti.on of said benefit,

specifi~ally the retainer is inequitable due to the malfeasance

on part;of Defendants.

I

59. :Defendants became unjustly enriched to the detriment of

th~ Plaintiff by inter alia: !

I

8. !F~iling to advise Plaintiff of Shafer's personal conflict

I ,

'of ant e res t .

b. IFailing to advise Plainti ff about Shafer I sown :dissolution of marriage and domestic violence pr.oceedings ~hat provided a total distraction from Plaintiff's high profile and time-consuming case.

c. ~ailing to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff as a ~esult of the irreconcilable conflict and attaining the :knowledge that Former Wife's counsel was using personal ~nformation regarding Shafer 8gainst him.

d. $pending thousand5 of the Pl~intiff's dollars on a trip to New York that he had previously advised the Court was net; necessary.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive. Suite 101 I Coral Springs. Florida 33076 (954) 323 -89561 F; (954) 301-63331 nick@nt~hlw.com

Page 15 or 19

OCT-15-2010 15:50

P .18

e. Taking his girlfriend/client on the same trip and billing !Plaintiff £0,1;" her travel to New York and accommodations 'in a four-star hotel.

f. Excessively billing tho Plaintiff for the New York trip and on other occasions.

g. Failure to disclose the well-known-to-attorney conflict between the Former Wife's law firm dnd the presiding Judge on the ca~e, the Honorable Martin H. Colin.

h. 'Failing to oversee his law firm staff, specifically 'Defendant Frieden who did not know if she was working on an original dissolution of m~rriage proceeding or a postjudgment matter (see attached l-!:xhibi t "F".)

60. IBy reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in

,

I

a sum t~ be determined in accordance with evidence adduced at

trial, ~ut believed to be not less than Five Hundred Thousand

,

Do 11 a r s I ($ 5 0 0 rOO 0 . 00 • )

I

61. ;1n addition, by reason of Defendants being faithless

fiduciaiies, they are required to return all compensation for

I

service$ rendered.

62. The acts of Defendants constitute a conscious, malicious

and intentional disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff

i

specifically reserves his right to dmend this complaint to plead

I

,

punitiv~ damages as required by ~lorida Law.

I

I

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that ·this

I

Court tfke jurisdiction of Count IV and render judgment against

the Defendants, jointly and severally, in his favor in an amount

to be d~termined at trial but not less than Five Hundred

Thousan9 Dollars ($500,000.00) in compens~tory damages and

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N_ University DriVI;, Suite l()1 1 Coral Springs, rlOtida 33076 (954) 323 -89561 f: (954) 30\.63331 nick@ntslllw.com

Page 16 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:50

P .19

,

punitiv~ damages, award them interest and costs and such other

relief bs the Court deems just and equjt~ble.

I

! COUNT V - FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

, I

Pl~iritiff, Lewis Kasman sues all Defendants for fraudulent

inducem~nt and states,

, ,

63. Plaintiff re-alleges all previous allegations and

conclusions.

64. 'Defendants knowingly advised Plaintiff that their

,

represc~tation of Plaintiff was in accord with Florida Bar

i

ethics rules and that no conflict of interest existed and that

Defendants had the time and focus to represent Plaintiff in his

high pr~fi10 and time-consuming dissolution proceedings, which

i

Defenda~ts knew was false and intended to have the Plaintiff

rely on

65. Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiff by, inter

.;1.1ia:

a. I Failing to advise Plainti ff of Shafer's personal conflict of interest.

b. Failing to advise Plaintiff about Shafer's own dissolution of marriage and domestic violence proceedings that provided a total distraction from Plaintiff's high profile and time-consuming case.

c. Failure to disclose the wcll-known-to-attorney conflict between the Former Wifeis law firm and the presiding Judge on the case, the Honorable Martin H. Colin.

d. That he was a capable attorney and had capable associates and staff that could h~ndle a case as highprofile and time-commanding as Plaintiff's case.

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive. Suitt: 10 1 1 COI'IlI Springs, Florida 33076 (954) 323 "89561 p; (954) 301·6333 Illick<1'!.1ntslaw.com

Page 17 of 19

OCT-15-2010 15:50

P.20

66. ~y reason of the foregoing I PldlI1Llfi has been damaged in

a sum t~ be determined in accordance with evidence adduced at

!

trial, but believed to be not less than Five Hundred Thousand

I

Dollars ($500,000.00.)

67. In addition, by reason of Defendants being faithles~

fiduciaries, they are required to return all compensation for

services rendered.

68. The acts of Defendants constItute a conscious, malicious

and intentional disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff

,

specifically reserves his right to amend this complaint to plead I

punitive damages as required by Florida Law.

WHEtkFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this I

, I

Court t~ke jurisdiction of Count V and render judgment against !

I

the Defrndants, jointly and severally, in his favor in an amount

!

to be d4termined at trial but not less than Five Hundred

I

Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) in compensatory damages and

punitiv~ damages, award them interest und costs and such other

relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plain'tiff Kasman pr a y s for judgment and relief

:

as fOll?WS, where applicable: i

1. A~arding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff

I

ag~inst!all defendants for the damages sustained as a result of I

I

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N, University Drive. Suite 101 I COl"al Springs. Floridl133076 (954) 323 ·8956 I F: (954) 30 1-6333 IlIjcH~ntslaw.com

Page I s or 19

OCT-15-2010 15:51

P.21

, ,

the wrongful conducL alleged and as will be established through

discovery andlor at trial, together with interest thereon.

2. Awarding punitive damages to plaj.ntiff against all of the

defendants for the egregiously wrongful conduct alleged herein

after proper amendment of this Complaint.

3. Granting restitution to plaintiff.

4. And such other and further rslicf as this Court may deem

just tind proper.

JURy TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Dated: 15th day of October 2010

Respectfully submitted,

/"

~ ?iNS f, ~A_. T!-:. E::-S_'~----;;;jb~===="_""""" Nicholas T. Steffens ( ._--

Florida Bar No. 0010873 Shanna L. Feldman

Florida Bar No. 0010387

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A. 5571 N. Univ8rsity Drive, Suite 101 Coral Springs, Florida 33076

T: (954) 323-8956

F: (951:\) 301~6333

Nicholas T. Steffens & Associates, P.A.

5571 N. University Drive, Suite 101 1 Coral Spring!', FIMida 33076 (954) 323 -8<.>561 F: (954) J01·6:rn Inid:@ntslllw.com

Page 19 of19

OCT-15-2010 15:51 I

P.22

Exhibit A

OCT-15-2010 15:51

, ~

P.23

The Flora(l:;;1o. Bar Inquiry/Com,pj~i:.ill,'il1t Form

OCT-15-2010 15:51

'I ~ •

P.24

--"+1;+ . "'----1---- ............... --. - tlerflYBeaeh. oft: 83+t8

'd P

----"'"I+!i-___,_------,. - I .... ~ ................ ~,--,-------

S S~a.'1'1 e Cf~I?I<

--~~~~~~:;...;_---.._.----,- ._--------

_,......_.._.,~~---........;;;:~;..ooo......U a .(~~_A,C. __ A,..;.........:;.P ~

____ -'H4-~.JIIo~':.R.~() RIO 17 ,_&~~ _.~, __ ~~ ... ~~_

........____,1ttt---:!~/..-.-.,E~. _:zeff~ J_g__J'j_._s.......-.± ... ----....

--_+H--/~~{ a_. ~_4 .5..S._ee) _~ft, ... ~ ~ 3 '1.1' - d ~ 00

,_..---.~~ -~ ---1 '.v' 0 - , _ _"",

_ __,......j'1+\I-1 --+- ---=--=- __ fi?e-: -z':::::: ~ /f$ '1_;_;; _

--"'!H+' ._!---- __ ~ ... _ ... _.-. __ ... _" il4elo ._ Sj f /_93~(i.~t

OCT-15-2010 15:52

P.25

OCT-15-2010 15:52

. . . : I

P.2G

OCT-15-2010

15:53

P.27

'I

.... ,.~ ......... ~--.- ...

_ _ _- .

t1'

... ___._,..·· ,I , · J....... , .•.

!

I~ """'.'---~, '.-'." ~.I'" ., •• II r I' ~~.' ,,,", .. _' _ '_~'_"' __ "''''''''''''_'''_''''rr .. '''''''''' __ '_'. __ ' _'

. I

-~~.--- .. --- .. ~~~~,.-,.,-,. ".-,.~,-~ ... ~- , ........ ,,", ..... , '-""." -#-·,~·':---r'9-·"··----~·-,-·"· .. --,

.... ,,~ ••. ,.,-?-- .. -.,,' ••• ,'" -"'''., ......• "' , .. ,-- .. , - ...• -. .., ~~- - ~+.".' ..-

'01 •• 1.0" II. ',..,. ••• ..- ., 11 ....•• , ••• IIU,,',r .. '. ····"·-m'· .• ,. U 1""'"'''''''' .,_, , " •• , "I--r, .. ,. __ - -. ""'I'~·~r" •••.•. _ ,.,-. .

OCT-15-2010 15:53 I

I

P.28

,1 •

Exhibit B

P.29

OCT-15-2010 15:53

SHAFER COhlEr,( lLP

!Y;tQrJllWs At _~ ,~!!V".

Boca Fimmci~~j PL:ila

£155,0 Glades Ho~"jJ Suite 250

Boca Raton, FloQ-r,~.;iI '33431

JF.J.F.PHONE :l51'1l21i"1GQO FACSIMILE 561-926-1700

March 12:, 200b

,

'I

I

VV . are pleased to represent you with regard to Dissolution of Marriage. This

Retainer greement (the "Agreement") sets forth th« terms of our retention. Please note tha:t: e do not render tax or real estate advice. An accountant or lawyer who specialize' in these areas should be consulted Witrl

,

I I

I

R.ETAINER AND FEE_)\GR~

As artial payment towards thjLfinal fee, you are providing us a non-refundable retainer in he amount of $75,OOO.OO-,nat will be aprJlied toward that portion of the bill that is ba~ d on the hourly charges of the attorneys or paralegal working on the case. When the' nitial retainer is substantially depleted, ar~ additional retainer will be required.

Tho remi, er fee i~ not a flat fee and in no way is to be a final fee but rather a deposit t . assure representation. The retainer ko is a partial payment toward the entire leg I fee and other expenses incurred by ocr offlce 011 your behalf. The client und·. tands that the total fee cannot be predicted since the time to be involved, the course f this matter, and the actions of the other party or other parties' counsel are not predict ble and there are frequently complexities that are not always obvious at the

onset of til case. .

I

! ' Legal Fee

I

I

The: "ee will be based upon an hourly billing charge. Our minimum charge is

$425.00 p. hour for legal services rendered by Lewis R. Shafer; Esq., $325.00 per hour for I ' al services rendered by Ronald S. Nisonson: $325.00 per hour for legal

I

I .

Li( \ .

OCT-15-2010 15:53

P.30

01\, , -,

Lewis Ka;;:; an

IWblinel' tl d ~e& Agreemont March 12, OOB

Page 2

services ndered by Karen M. Pollock, Esq. and $250.00 per hour for legal services rendered by Rebecca Frieden, Esq. other associates including but not limited to attorneys affiliated with our office. as Ijof counsel" may work on your file and the rates for those ttorneys will vary fram $185.00 per hour up to $325.00 per hour, $125.00 per hour or services rendered by a law clerk and $115.00 per hour for services rendered y paralegalti and legal assistants. The hourly rate includes all time spent on the case i eluding, but not limited to: telephone calls, pleadings, document preparation, documen review, agreements, conferences, meetings. research, travel.

correspo dance. and court appearances. All time is charged portal to portal. HDurly billing is b lied to the nearest one-tenth (1/10) of an hour, and as such is billed in six (6) minutes i crements. It is the policy of this office to compute a minimum .10 (1110 of an hour) for ach telephone contact no matter how short, as well as each letter produced

or receive. .

Bill· 9 will generally be monthly and each statement for services rendered is payable wthin ten (10) days ofthe invoice date. By consenting to the herein agreement you are a thorizing any and/or all members of the sta'l} and attorneys affiliated with the lawoffice of Shafer Cohen, LLP to work on your file.

Costs

Yo are responsible for all casts of litigation including, but not limited to, travel expenses, court reporters' fees. transcript fees, fees for private detectives, court costs (filing fees subpoena expenses, etc.), fees for expert witnesses, express mail. long distance t lephone charges. and the like. These costs will be itemized in your billing statement and you agree to pay these charges promptly upon receipt. By Signing the Agreemen you authorize us to advance costs and retain experts on your behalf. In addition. y u will be charged and are responsible for a non-accountable, non-itemized administra ·ve charge for telephone, postage. photocopies. and facsimile expenses for which we sess a charge of seven percent (7%) of your monthly legal fee.

ApQointm.ents

ffice requests that you call and schedule an appointment prior to coming to lients that come to our office without an appointment will not be seen.

Reasooableness of Fee

L222L2 ._

If at ny time you think the hourly bills are not fair and reasonable, you must notify us in riting within thirty (30) days of the date of the complained of invoice, and together we will review the invoice. If no notice is received, it is understood that the invoice is a cepted as correct. accurate. fair and reasonable. The reasonableness of

~

P.31

OCT-15-2010 15:54

-".

I..ewis J(as an

Re~in(lr OJ d Foe Agreement March 12, 008

Pago3

any disp ted fee shall be settled by Professional Arbitration committee of the Palm Beach C unty Bar Association. which will be the final determination of its

reasona leness, Any dispute arising out of this professional relationship shall be heard in Palm each County. Florida.

NQn~Payment OJ Fee

In he event of non-payment of our fee and/or expenses) we shall have a retaining len as provided for under Florida law on all documents. property or money in our poss ssion as security for all money due us under this Agreement and we shall have a ch rgine li~n as provided for under Florida law against the moneys as well as real and ersonal property resulting from the litigation or settlement of dispute. Any charging I ens entered shall be pursuant to fina.l court approval. You win be obligated to us to pay II attorneys' fees and costs necessitated by non-payment whether we represent ourselves or hire others. If any legal action arises out of our attorney/Qlient relations lp and we prevall, then you will pay all our attorneys' fees and costs in connecti n therewith.

An overdue balances shaH be subject to interest charges of one and one half (1.5%) pe cent per month.

Interest

Obligation of Attorney - Cli~nt

The attorney is an officer of the Court and is bound by the rules regulated by the Florida Sa . The client acknowledges and understands that while the attomey accepts this emplo ment and promises to render professional legal services to the best of hisJher abil ty during the ccnflnuatlon of this employment, the attorney makes 1JQ warranties. representations or guarantees of the representation and that this fee agreement is not "ccntmqent" thereon. The client further understands that the attorney cann t and will not e$timme. wh",t tl)e ultimate fee it"J this matter will be. the client agree~ to f fly cooperate with the attorney, to do nothing that would compromise the attorneys rofessional ethics; and not to request or require the attorney to do anything in violation f the Rules of Professional Conduct If the client has misrepresented or fail~d to dis lose any material fact. refuses to follow the attorney's advise) or fails to be available a necessary for preparation. conferences, depositions, hearings or other court proce dings, the attorney may withdraw from representation, with leave of the court. The ient acknowledges and understands that the attorney's obligations of loyalty to th cllent applies to the discharge of his professional duties and does not imply an obI gation on the part of the attorney to adopt a personal viewpoint favorable to the interest r desires of the ellsnt,

OCT-15-2010 15:54

P.32

Lewis K sm;:ln

Retainer nd Fe-a Agreem&nt Nli1Ir(:h 1 2008

.Eage 4

hls contract shall act as a stipulation for withdrawal at any time if the law firm is its fees and costs as agreed to by this contract.

e thank you for asking us to represent you. We look forward to serving you.

'HAVE EAD THCZS ONTRACT, UNDERSTAND IT, AND ~G EE ~o tDH RE TO THE TERMS.

By: q~ ~

FOR GO 0 AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION THE HE EIN RETAINER AND FEE AGREEMENT IS PERSON LLY GUARANTEED BY Joan Sehiff.

I__"""_~ ~

Joan Setliff /'

OCT-15-2010 15:54 I

P.33

Exhibit C

OCT-15-2010 15:54

P.34

RESPONSE OF LEWIS R. SIlAFER TO COMPLAINT OF LEWIS KASMAN

Florida Bar File 201u.-S).,193(15D)

Mr. asman's complaint appeal'S to be twofold: (1) unreasonable or excessive billing related to a ip to New York. and (2) a conflict of interest related to my alleged representation by Mr. K;:J.SO")an ::; wife's counsel in my own divorce CaSB. I will respond to each in tum.

I trav led to New York to meet with Mr. Kasman regarding the case and to attend depositions .at had been set by his wife's counsel before Twas retained, The depositions were set for Monday nd Tuesday, April 28 and 29,2008. Mr. Kasman specifically told me that he wanted me to attend ie depositions. He told me that his prior counsel had not attended one or more earlier depositions, nd he expressed displeasure about that.

Mr. 1 man also-wanted me to come to New York to meet with him about the case. On March Zl, 2 08.-----eight days after I was retained-the FBI had transported Mr. Kasman to New York and int witness-protection custody in an undisclosed location in connection with a criminal case pendin in the Eastern District of New York against members of the Mob. Mr. Kasman arranged our meeting with the FEU and the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case to meet with me on Frida) April 25, 2008, in Queens, New York. Accordingly, I traveled to New York and in fact, met wit Mr. Kasman that day for at least two hours at the FBI office. We discussed many aspects of hi case, and 1 gave him a box of documents pertaining to it. (A copy of a receipt for those docum nts, signed by Mr. Kasman, is attached hereto as "Exhibit l.")

The llowing witnesses wer~ deposed:

( ) Michael Gold, the New York lawyer representing Mr. Kasman with regard to the criminal natter;

( ) Mr. Kasman' s former accountant, Marvin Weinstein;

. ( ) the records custodian ofAXA Financial, Inc., which had issued one or more

insuranc policies to Mr. Kasman or members of his family;

( ) the records custodian and corporate representative of We strock Advisors, Inc., with whom r. Kasman had one or more investment accounts; and

( ) the records custodian and corporate representative of Lester. Minsky & Berzak, P .C., a 1 w firm previously engaged by Mr, Kasrnan.

OCT-15-2010 15:55

P.35

RC9POD:1O of). wi$ R.. SbnlllUo Complolnt a . Lewis K:tlInDil Fin. Bllr file 2 10.51,19.1(150)

The Gold and AXA depositions "Were scheduled fur Monday, April 28, in Ma11hatts(I,. The

Weinstei We strock, and Lester depositions were scheduled for Tuesday, April 29, on Long Island. I returned to Florida on a law flight on April 29.

en if Mr. Kasman had ~ot told me that he wanted me to attend, letting opposing counsel take the d positions without Mr. Kasman's being repre:sc:nted at them was not a reasonable option. I may ha e asked few or no questions of the witnesses, but that usually is the best strategy when a, witness f. votable to one's client is being deposed by the opposition.

taking my girl friend on the trip did not increase the east to Mr. Kasman, I billed only for time . 0100 to Mr. Kll$mmls case, 1 did Dot eharge him for my Saturday night hotel stay, and I billed . for the cost of my air fare alone. (My girl friend returned to Florida on an early flight on Monday, pril 28.) The total cost to Mr. Kasman for my trip (including fees) was approximately $l6,OOO~ ot $)5,000.

M . Kasman did not complain Qf this trip until well aftel' I withdrew from his representation due to n payment. Indeed, until then Mr. Kasman consistently expressed appreciation for my efforts on his behalf, even sending me a "thank you" card on May 24J 200S-ten da.ys a.fler 1 mailed to him m invoice for fees and costs incurred in April. including those for the New York trip. (A copy of . at thank-you note and accompanying envelope are attached hereto as "Exhibit 2.j

Conjlict o/lntltrest

I ever engaged the Weiss Handler firm to represent me in my personal dissolution-ofmarriage ase, On an cceasion well befo~ I met and was ~etained by MJ:. Kasman, I encountered.

Hemry dler at a restoUIWlt in Boca Raton. He mentioned that he had h~d that I was about to go

through a divorce and offered to represent me. Our discussion was limited to personal things; there was no eli cussion of fees, issues, strategy, or the like. My letter of June I 1 ~ 2008, to Henry Handler (attached 0 Mr. Kasman's complaint) wns ln reaction to Mr. Kasman's infonning me that

Ms. gencr was relating personal information about me to Mr. Knsman1s wife. O!).r:efJectiQn~ X

overreact d when I characterized my discussicns with them as having "consulted" th~. Indeed, they did ot consider it a. consultation, as evidenced by Mr. Handler's June 13, 2008~ response to my letter COlly attached hereto M "Exhibit 3").

ere is nothing about that discrete, informal conversation with Handler aad Weiss that ever cbilled or otherwise adversely affected my rc:;presentati.on of Mr. Kasmun. 1 believe that at aU times during m representation ofl\l1r. Kasman, I provided him with my undivided loyalty and. with

zealous sentation of his, interests within the bounds oftbe law.

OCT-15-2010 15:55

I

I

P.3G

Exhibit D

OCT-15-2010 15:55

l

":Rpf' 29 2nD jIj, ~ ~~PM

I I

I

I

I

j

I

I,

I

!

I

I1P LASERJET fAX

. April 23. 2008

"

P.37

10'.2

I '.. I

In light of the 'Court'.· ruling' today on the Husbaivrs 'M~fDn for Protective' Order ' provide our offJce With a NoI!te of Canoellation of the ~OBltion of th& Last Radio

Carp. '

., ,AdQJttonally. the nimalnJnQ depositions whlch you, $¢bed~led in New York ~, take, place neltl: week d~ not n~ed ~o be taken in, person. TIle rafOre. I ask tnat you reccneider yo~r oed to sp8IJQ the parties money ,trawling, to ,New Vo~ and simply atf.en.d the dep tlions v~a t&lephone, your prompt .. ~te iD thIs. requeat 1$ verym~~b appreciated,

Thl;1ok yOu in advanCe fo~. your antic~ted' coln1:esy' and c:ooperatlon~

, , .

8o.:aRnandal P~ • $$$f}GfcJt1e5 Road" ®JXe 250 .. BQ~ «Q1Qn" florfdCI3343' r.hone: .$61~1'15OO" Far:tl/mf1t;r;·.5dI-81tJ-llW .

, , '

OCT-15-2010 15:55

I

P.38

Exhibit E

OCT-15-2010 15:55

P.39

SHAFER & ASSOCiATES, P.A. 5550 GLADES ROAD SUITE 2~iJI

BOCA RATON. FL, 33431

May 8, 20')8

RE: Dissolution of Marriage DOM

Services
Dale Eme Descrigtion Hours

04124/08 LRS Telephone call with Burzak re: OeposiUon of Attomey: review 0.40
Subpoena;
LRS Telephone call with opposing counsel re: Depositions and 0.30
Proposed Orders from HearinS of 4/23/08;
04/25/08 RAF Review and revise two (2) letters: 0,10
RAF Telephone call with Pike & Pike to send Order from Judge on 0,10
Protective Order;
RAF Respond to email from Joe Tringali, CPA sending template: 0.10
RAF Prepare Notice of Cancellation of Deposition; dW
LRS Travel to New York and meet with Client;
04128/08 LRS Review and revise Order regarding Protective Order and
Extension of Time and status of Hearings and meet with Tricia
re: same;
RAF Review and revise Client enclosure letters; (no charge) ~
LRS Attend Depositions in New York;
04/29/08 RAF Letter to Judge; revise Order and send Revised Order to .0
Judge;
LRS Receive and review letter from opposing counsel re: 0.20
Husband's Discover Extension; meeting with Rebecca Frieden,
Esq.; 0.10
LRS Receive and review letter from opposing counsel to Judge with
Proposed Orders, meeting with Rebecca Frieden, Esq.;
LRS Receive and review fax from opposing counsel re: response to 0.10
Husband's request to cease disbarging remarks; ~
LRS Attend Depositions in Mineola New York Travel home;
04/30/08 RAF Meeting with Lewis R. Shafer, Esq. re: status and Depositions;
LRS Meeting with Rebecca Frieden, Esq.; 0,20
05/01/08 LRS Receive and review message from opposing counsel, letter to 0.20
opposing counsel re: Wisniewski and Out of State
Commission;
05/06/08 RAF Oraft Order to Proposed Order for Judge; 0.20
RAF Review CHent enclosure letter; (no charge) 0.10
RAF Draft letter to Judge asking tor Entry of Order; 0.20 OCT-15-2010 15:56

Page two
MayS, 200
lewis Ka
Date EmR
05/07/08 l.RS
LRS
05108/08 LRS
LRS P.40

Description Telephone call with Client re: status;

Meeting with Rebecca Frieden, Esq. re: letter to Judge re:

Discovery deadline; email Joe Tringali, CPA;

Receive and review Supplemental Affidavit of Gregg Zucker, Esq. with Exhibils re: Out of State Commission:

Telephone call with opposing counsel re: status of Wisniewski Deposition and Order to Show Cause;

Hours

0.20 0.20

0.20 0.20

Summary 0 Services

RAF RAF LRS

1.40 hr @ 250.00 $ 350.00

0.30 hr @ 0.00 $ 75_DONC

41.70 hr @425.00 $ 17722.50

Total Professional Services $18.072.50

Costs and isbursements
Date Description Amount

04125/08 Car service from home to FLL; 75.00
04125108 Car service from LaGuardia Airport to Hotel; 45.00
04125/08 Car service to Queens, meeting wtth Client; 125.00
04/25/08 Taxi to Deposition; 10.00
04125/08 Taxi from Deposition: 10.00 r;
04/25/08 HoteI4-25-0B. 4-27-08 and 4-2S~08; 1,262.46" ilr
04125/08 Airfare to New York City; 309.5g7 I.
04129/08 Airfare from New York City; 329.5
04129/08 Rental Car 4-29-08 69,83
04129/08 Car Service from FLL to home; 75.00
04129/08 Gas for rental car; 10.00
04129/08 Tax; 6.00
Costs Pursuant to Retainer at 7% 1,265.08

Total Costs and Disbursements $ 3.592.37

CHARGES ~ 21,664.87

Previous B lance Forward iw28,183.22 OCT-15-2010 15:56

Page three May8,200 Lewis Kasm n

P.41

Balance Fo rd Total New harges Payments a d Credits

$-28.183.22 21,664.87 0.00

You have a credit of:

$ ..{l,518.35

OCT-15-2010 15:56

Page four May8,200

. Lewis Kas an

P.42

$ 0.00

New Retainer Account Balance

$ 0.00

Please rem t an additional $20000.00 to replenish your retainer account bal nee

OCT-15-2010 15:56

I

P.43

Exhibit F

OCT-15-2010 15:56

April 7,2010

P.44

THE lAO 'r ICE 0 F STUART R. MANOFF & ASSOClATES, P.A.

STUAItT R. J\lv..NOH, EsC!...

SOAItD C~I~l'lfitU

IN MARITA.l. ANO r .... MII.\' LAw

WI~L1AM N. l.AzAIlCHlCK, )1\. Esa.... run~cCA A FRIEDEN, Es~

Thf;l Florida. Attn: Heidi . Brewer, Bar Counsel Attorney Co sumer Assistance Program 651 East Jef erson Street

Tallahassee, "o)ida 32399w2300

VlAFIRST

Re: Complaint of Lewis Kasman :File No. 2010-51, 334 (lSE)

This cortes ondence is in response to the above-referenced complaint filed by Lewis Kasman against me . hich is attached to your letter dated March 10. 2010 and received by my office on March 12. OlD. More()ver, this correspondence shall serve as a response to Mr. Kasman's additional c rrespondence received by my office dated March 26, 2010 and your additional correspond' e received by my office dated March 26,2010.

I was an a scciate attorney at Lewis R. Shafer~s Law Finn, Shafer Cohen. LLP. when Mr. Kasman h:ir d Mr, Shafer and the law firm of Shafer Cohen, LLP, to represent him (I do not remember i it was for dissolution of marriage proceedings Or post-judgment matters), However, 1 do rern er that the case was highly litigated by both parties. As such, I was assigned to 'perform woo k on Lewis Kasman's file on different matters at the request of Lewis Shafer, ES(,l.

Mr. Kasm' 1 starts out his complaint by slating that I was aware of the fraudulent billing practices G ployed by Lewis R. Shafer. This statement is false as I had no knowledge of Mr, Shafer's bil ing or filly reason to believe his billing practices were fraudulent. I was not privy to Lewis 8h9.£ r's billing 011 Mr. Kasman's file nor did I keep track of Mr. Shafer~:;; billing on Mr. Kasrnan's 0 ae or any other case at the law firm tor that matter. 1 was responsible for billing my time for W k I performed on a file and submitted my billing to our office administrator. Each da.y I subm tted a green sheet of paper with my handwritten billing showing the case I worked on, the war I performed and the time it took me to complete each task.

Mr. Kasm, represents that 1 told him that Lewis Shafer, Esq. is "ripping [him] off", "overbilling [him]" and/ r "charging [him] for non existent matters", Such statements are completely false as I never , any reason to believe that Lewis Shafer, Esq. was "ripping Mr. Kasman off', "overbillin him" 01" "charging him fOT non-existent matters", As stated before, I never saw or porfbrmed Ml.'. Shafer's billing and therefore, I had no personal knowledge of his billing. Moreover, part of tile office procedure.Tnever reviewed Mr. Kasrnan's complete client bills. I only revie ed my mdividual billing. The first rime I have seen Mr. Kasman's client bill was in

:515 NORTH FI.I\c;"elt RiVe, Surra :1.125 • W~H PIILM BliACI1. fLOIUOA 33401 I!I TWll'HO",~; 561.655.3993 • ~A)(; 561.65S.6685

P P. II c T]] C I N 0 ~ X G L U s I VEL YIN It. I. L A f\. E A S 0 f MAn. I TAL "N Dr" MIl. Y LAW

OCT-15-2010 15:57

P.45

C(l~I'¢~polld~lwe A.pril 7, 2010 PHgl.l2

Mr. Kasman's April 24. 2008 client bill was enclosed in a correspondence sent by e'11 26~ 2010 received by my office.

In addition, re client's bills were sent to the client for review by the C\i~l1t_ As such, if Mr. Kssman had' issue with Lewis Shafer's billing he should have discussed that matter with Mr. Shafer. Whe er Mr. Kasrnan discussed his billing with Lewis Shafer is beyond my knowledge, However, th client never advised me of any issues with lJ.'1y billing.

Mr. Kasman epresents tllat I stated to Mr. Kasman that "it was not needed tu travel to New York City . It wa solely for Lewis R. Shafer to take his girlfriend OJl a vacation on [his] money." Again, this tatement is false. The decisions regarding case strategy were discussed with Mr. Kasman xn made between Mr, Shafer and Mr. Kasman, To my knowledge, Mr. Shafer discussed wit 1 Mr. Kasman the decision to go to New York to defend depositions and meet with the client, '1' we is no n~.\I;;Ol'l10I me to believe anything to the contrary,

Moreover, I id not travel to New York City with Mr. Shafer, not did I assist him with booking his travel p ~ with regard to New York City. I am unaware of the time Mr. Shafer spent at depositions r with Lewis Kasman or the amount he billed to Mr. Kasman to travel to New York City. I do n t recall if T even knew thar Mr. Shafer was going to bring his "girlfriend" with him b.') New Y or] City.

Mr. Kasmar '::I representation that 1 was a complicit party to this scheme to defraud Mr. Kasman of his and his Mother's money is disingenuocs. There: were numerous issues regarding this case. Moreover, t is case was a highly litigated case at tile request of Mr. Kasman. As such, 1 WM unaware of lY crimes and/or fraud committed by Lewis Shafer. Esq. but rather, believed that Lewis Shali" , Esq. was acting with the consent and on behalf of the client, Lewis Kasman,

Moreover, ith regard to the March 26, 2010 correspondence addressed to you, Mr. Kasman accuses me of "speaking with and collaborating Lewis R Shafer, Esq." This accusation is completely alse. 1 have not spoken with Mr. Shafer about this matter. It has been well over a year since I have spoken with Mr. Shafer at all.

I hope this orrespondence is responsive to your inquiry. However, if you should require any additional il formation please 40 not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

".~., " .. ,-" " .. '-'~'.'~'~

I I • I I' _..-......,__...__....._...I_,~I .•.• ,_ ....

l( !t5gc:~~~. -:den, Esquire

OCT-15-2010 15:57

P.4G

Pursuant to . le 3-7. '1 (f), Rules of Discipline, you must execute the appropriate disclosure paragraph be ow and return the form to this office by March 24, 2010. The rule provides that the nature of he. charges be stated in the notice to your fitm; however, we suggest that you attach a. copy of the complaint.

CERTIFICATE OF 'DISCLOSURE

THEREBY

CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOS URE (Corporate/Government Employment)

1 HEREBY ER. TIFY that on this day of_~ __ ~~ 201~ a true copy of

the foregoin disclosure was furnished to my supervisor

at +- __ ~ ~ __ ~ __ ~ (name of agency), with

which I was sociated M the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bal' File No. 201 .. 51,334 (lSE).

Rebecca A Frieden

CERTIFICATE OF NO~~LAW FIRM AFFILIATION

(Sole Practitioner)

1 HERB',SY ERTIFY to TIle Florida Bar on this day of 201-,

that 1 am no presently affiliated with a law firm and was not affiliated with a law fu-m at the time of the act(s) iving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2010~51 ,334 (l5E).

Rebecca A Frieden

Total P.4G

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful