1

3
4
5
6
'7
B
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
L6
1-'1
Kenin M. Spivak (SBN 97996)
Theodore Maloney (SBN 125094)
Dennis M. Russell (SBN 118253)
SML LLP
450 North Roxbury Drive, Suite 700
Beverly Hills, Califomia 90210
Tel: 310-691-5811
Fax: 310-691-5809
E-mail : kspivak@SMllawgroup.com
tmaloney
@S
ML lawgroup. com
drussell@S MLlawgroup. com
Christopher Tomaszewski (SBN 255061)
Bridget Jones (SBN 256086)
APEX LEGAL GROUP PC
1801 Tribute Road
Sacramento, California 95 8 1 5
Tel: (916) 270-2022
Fax: (916) 644-6227
E-mail: chris@apexlegal.org
Attorneys for Moving Parties
T}RIGIF{AfuFIIED
F{AR e I
?CIir
f*ils,EN{iHLES
EL]THRIL}R
COIJRT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PAUL RONALD etc., et a1.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
etc., et al.,
Case No. 8C409444
[Assigned
for all purposes to
Hon. William F. Highberger, Dept. 3071
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO REMOVE MITCHEL J. STEIN AS
CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS AND AS COUNSEL FOR
SPECIFIED PLAINTIFFS. TO
COMPEL STEIN TO TURN OVER
ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENTS AND
FOR AN ACCOUNTING;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF
CHRTSTOPHER TOMASZEWSKI,
KENIN M. SPIVAK. TED MALONEY
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN


2
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AND BRIDGET JONES; EXHIBITS

Action Filed: March 12, 2009
Date:
Time:
Department: 307
Discovery Cut-Off: Not Set
Trial Date: Not Set

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 3, 2011, at 9:00 A.M. in Department 307 of the
above referenced court located at 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, CA. 90005
Plaintiffs, through their counsel, SML LLP, Apex Legal Group P.C., Kenin M. Spivak,
Christopher Tomaszewski, Bridget Jones and Ted Maloney (collectively, “Moving Parties”)
will move this Court for an Order seeking the following relief (the “Requested Relief”):
(a) To relieve attorney Mitchell J. Stein (“Stein”) of his position as co-lead counsel on
behalf of Plaintiffs in this litigation;
(b) To relieve Stein and Erikson S. Davis (“Davis”) from rendering any further legal
services for clients who have retained or retain any or all of Jones, Tomaszewski,
Apex Legal Group P.C. (“Apex”), Spivak, Spivak Law Group, or SML LLP
(“SML”), except those plaintiffs who file and do not revoke a written objection
thereto within thirty (30) days after the entry of an order for the Requested Relief;
(c) To require Stein and Davis to produce to Moving Parties copies of: (1) all
correspondence with the clients for whom Stein is relieved from providing services,
(2) all correspondence with Defendants as to which Moving Parties were not copied,
(3) all discovery propounded on Defendants or received from Defendants, (4)
transcripts in hard copy and disc form for all individuals who have been deposed by
Stein or Davis in this action, and (5) all other information necessary or appropriate for
a smooth transition, all within sixty (60) days after the entry of an order for the
Requested Relief;
(d) To require Stein and Davis to deliver to Moving Parties accountings of their time in


3
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the matter for use in any lodestar computations made at the time the lawyers in this
matter become entitled to any fees, all within sixty (60) days after an entry of an order
for the Requested Relief;
(e) To require Stein and Davis to produce to Moving Parties or a third party designated
by this Court copies of all engagement agreements ever existing, whether proposed,
sent, received, signed or unsigned and all modifications, amendments, supplements
and replacements with respect thereto, whether proposed, sent, received, signed or
unsigned, by which either of them will or might render services and/or will or might
directly or indirectly receive financial benefits pertaining to all or any: (1) named
plaintiffs in this action, other than those plaintiffs who were disclosed and named on
the initial Complaint, First Amended Complaint or Second Amended Complaint, (2)
potential plaintiffs in this action and/or (3) potential plaintiffs in any other action
against all or any of the defendants in this action, within ten (10) days after entry of
an order for the Requested Relief;
(f) To require Stein and Davis to produce to Moving Parties copies of all literature or
other materials, except only personalized discussions in which Stein or Davis provide
specific legal advice (whether delivered electronically, by mail, or otherwise) used in
or in connection with the solicitation of the proposed plaintiffs set forth in the ex
parte notice sent by Davis on February 9, 2011 and any other plaintiffs proposed to be
added by amendment to this action during 2011; and
(g) To require Stein and Davis to produce to Moving Parties an accounting of any and all
financial benefits received or accrued directly or indirectly by either of them and/or
any of the family members, partners, associates, nominees, representatives or
designees of either or both of them, including, without limitation, benefits by way of
the services of lawyers, paralegals, secretaries and other support services, offices,
equipment and otherwise from, on behalf of, or appertaining to: (1) named plaintiffs
in this action, (2) potential plaintiffs in this action and (3) potential plaintiffs in any
other action against all or any of the defendants in this action, all within sixty (60)
1
2
3
4
tr
J
5
1
8
9
10
1t
12
13
1,4
15
L6
L1
18
L9
20
2L
22
aa
.A
25
26
21
28
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
days after the entry of an order for the Requested Relief.
The Requested Relief is sought pursuant to Code Civ. Proc.
g
128(a) and
g
187 and the
Court's inherent authority and is necessary because Stein and Davis have abrogated their
working relationships with the legal team,placing at
jeopardy
the team's representation of
plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, the attached declarations of Kenin M. Spivak, Ted Maloney, Bridget
Jones and Christopher Tomaszewski and exhibits attached thereto, the Court's record in this case
and such fuither evidence as may be presented to the Court regarding this Motion.
Dated: March 28,2011
SML LLp SML LLP
Attorneys for Moving Parties


i
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.  INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 
II.  FACTS .................................................................................................................................. 2 
A.  Procedural History ............................................................................................................... 2 
B.  The Legal Team Ruptures................................................................................................... 3 
III.  ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 8 
A.  This Court has the power, and indeed the obligation, to issue an appropriate order to
facilitate the proper and efficient administration of this case .................................................. 8 
B.  The legal team, as originally structured, is no longer functioning efficiently which will
adversely affect the team’s ability to effectively represent Plaintiffs ..................................... 10 
C.  Moving Parties are the originating lawyers for a majority of the Ronald clients and
may be the originating or co-counsel for nearly all of the Ronald clients .............................. 12 
D.  The legal team has grown and Stein is not required as co-lead counsel or as a counsel
with respect to clients who do not object to his discharge....................................................... 12 
E.  Granting relief in a timely manner will not only facilitate the efficient administration
of justice, but it will avoid known future pitfalls, saving future judicial resources and
protecting Plaintiffs. ................................................................................................................... 13 
F.  Moving Parties are entitled to an order compelling Stein to turn over all engagement
letters and to an accounting. ...................................................................................................... 13 
IV.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 15 





ii
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases 
Asbestos Claims Facility, et al., v. Berry & Berry, 219 Cal App. 3d 9 (1990) ........ 9, 10
Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bersntein LLP, 95 Cal. App. 4
th
154 (2002) ..... 13
Hays v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 2d 260, 264 (1940) ............................ 9
Lu v. Sup. Ct., 55 Cal. App. 4
th
1264 (1997) ............................. 9, 15
Statutes 
Code Civ. Proc. § 187 ............................................... 15
Code Civ. Proc. §128(a) .............................................. 8
Code Civ. Proc. §187 ................................................ 8
Rules 
CRC Rule 8.18 ................................................... 11
CRC Rule 8.25(a).............................................. 11
CRPC Rule 3-700( C )(3) ............................................ 10
CRPC, Rule 1-400 ................................................. 11
Rule 3.400 ....................................................... 9
Rule 3.401 ....................................................... 9
Rule 9.40(a) ...................................................... 8
Section 4 ....................................................... 10
Standard 2.1 ...................................................... 9
Standard 3.10(a) ............................................... 9, 10




1
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
This Motion is brought on behalf of four of the six lawyers in this action, who
collectively originated a majority of the plaintiffs: Kenin M. Spivak (“Spivak”) and Ted
Maloney (“Maloney”), currently of SML LLP (“SML”), Bridget Jones (“Jones”) and
Christopher Tomaszewski (“Tomaszewski”), of Apex Legal Group P.C. (“Apex”),
1
SML and
Apex (collectively, the “Moving Parties”).
2

The Moving Parties seek to relieve Stein as co-lead counsel, relieve Stein and Davis from
rendering services for the Moving Parties’ clients and obtain copies of applicable engagement
agreements and an accounting.
The Motion pertains to a rupture of the relationship between, on the one hand, the
Moving Parties, and on the other, Mitchell J. Stein (“Stein”) of Mitchell J. Stein & Associates
and Erikson M. Davis (“Davis”) of the Law Office of Erikson Davis.
3
This rupture has impeded
the legal team’s ability to give 100% to our clients and will seriously erode the team’s ability to
do so for the future.
As discussed during the December 17, 2010 hearing by the Court, Bank of America
(“BofA”) counsel Keith Klein, Spivak and Stein, Spivak is co-lead counsel in charge of
pleadings and Stein is co-lead counsel in charge of discovery.
4
Spivak’s responsibilities also
include directing research. Stein’s responsibilities also include procedural matters and liaising
with Stein-Spivak clients. However, to the Moving Parties’ knowledge, until February, 2011, all

1
Tomaszewski and Jones also recently became of counsel to SML.
2
By submitting this Motion, attached declarations and supporting documents, the Moving Parties
do not intend to waive and do not waive any privileges, including, without limitation, work
product protection.
3
Davis is also associated with the law firm of Kramer & Kaslow (or an affiliate thereof) and
with Mitchell J. Stein & Associates. See Spivak and Maloney declarations, annexed hereto.
4
In a status report filed on March 25, 2011 by Davis, without giving Moving Parties the
opportunity for prior review, Stein is referred to as “lead counsel.”


2
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
counsel contributed to substantially all aspects of the case, consulted on and approved of each
other’s material contributions to the case and jointly developed and executed strategy.
5
See
annexed Spivak declaration (“SD”) at ¶¶ 5-7, Tomaszewski declaration (“TD”) at ¶¶ 22, 24,
Maloney declaration (“MD”) at ¶ 3 and Jones declaration (“JD”) at ¶¶ 6, 8.
The Moving Parties do not by this Motion suggest that Stein is not a talented lawyer or
advocate, or that he has not contributed to this case. Rather, this Motion is focused on a lack of
civility, transparency and coordination with co-counsel that has reached a point where it is
impracticable for the legal team to function as a team, thereby materially impairing the ability of
counsel to fully represent the interests of the plaintiffs in this action as it proceeds.
While Moving Parties allege Stein is to blame for the ruptures, Stein might assert that
Moving Parties are to blame. Whatever the causes, the fact of the rupture is beyond dispute. As
a result, co-counsel can no longer effectively act together on behalf of the plaintiffs named in the
Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) or plaintiffs who might be added to the action.
II. FACTS
A. Procedural History
On March 12, 2009, 17 individuals filed a complaint in this action in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. The plaintiffs were clients of Jones and Tomaszewski (partners in Apex) and
Stein. Apex originated 16 of the 17 plaintiffs. Apex and Stein agreed to work together, as
reflected in the caption of the complaint. TD ¶ 2.
As more fully explained in the TD, through the Second Amended Complaint, the caption
remained the same and Apex continued to originate most clients. Thereafter, in or about May
2010, Stein, with the approval of Apex, asked Spivak to become co-lead counsel responsible for
pleadings and research. Stein separately recruited Davis at approximately the same time. TD
¶¶ 3-6, SD ¶ 5 and JD ¶ 3.
Accordingly, the caption of all court filings after that time and until March 15, 2011

5
Except as described in this Motion and the annexed declarations: the co-counsel generally have
not been involved in each other’s interaction with clients and potential clients.


3
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consisted of Jones, Tomaszewski, Stein, Davis and Spivak. At the beginning of 2011, Spivak
formed SML. Maloney then was added to the caption as an SML attorney. MD ¶ 4.
On June 14, 2010, this Court ordered the plaintiffs to file the TAC. Spivak was the
principal drafter, assisted primarily by Maloney, but as with all other court filings to that time,
the entire team contributed to the TAC and approved of it. The TAC, filed on July 7, 2010,
named 249 plaintiffs. Spivak and Stein, assisted by their family members worked
collaboratively to qualify plaintiffs for the TAC based on criteria established by Stein and on the
understanding that the resulting clients would be their joint clients. Stein took responsibility for
delivering a Stein-Spivak engagement agreement prepared by Spivak to their prospective clients
and for executing and processing the agreements. Separately, Apex also qualified clients and
took responsibility for delivering a similar engagement agreement also prepared by Spivak to its
clients and for executing and processing those agreements. Neither agreement required clients to
pay a retainer or to reimburse costs, unless the action was successful. TD ¶ 9, SD ¶ 43.
Of the 249 named plaintiffs in the TAC, Moving Parties estimate that Apex originated
128 clients, Spivak, 10 clients, Stein, two clients, Davis one client and the Stein-Spivak
collaboration, approximately 108 clients. TD ¶ 11, JD ¶ 3.
As described at TD ¶¶ 12-13, Spivak directed the successful effort to remand the action
and the Plaintiffs’ ability through the TAC and opposition to BofA’s demurrer, to finally place
the case at issue on January 11, 2011. At that time, the Court certified for interlocutory review a
writ by BofA with respect to the Court’s overruling of the TAC’s first cause of action. BofA
filed a petition for a writ (the “BofA Petition”) on or about March 11, 2011.
B. The Legal Team Ruptures
By oral agreement and practice of the legal team, the plaintiffs are jointly represented by
Davis, Jones, Maloney, Spivak, Stein and Tomaszewski, with Spivak and Stein as co-lead
counsel, each with separate, but somewhat overlapping responsibilities. Regardless of
responsibilities, to the Moving Parties’ knowledge, until February 2011, all counsel contributed
to court filings and approved of those filings and other key aspects of the litigation. TD ¶ 7, SD
¶ 24, MD ¶ 3, JD ¶ 8.


4
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
From late 2010, Spivak observed Internet postings regarding Stein, attorney Phillip
Kramer (“Kramer”), Kramer & Kaslow and K2 that included inaccurate and inappropriate
assertions. Spivak expressed concerns to Stein and made clear, among other things, that: (1) no
client could become a client in this action if there was uncertainty about that client’s provenance,
(2) as to clients with an appropriate provenance, after provision for a reserve for litigation costs,
Spivak and Stein were entitled to share in any retainers in accordance with their understandings,
and (3) Spivak needed copies of all Stein-Spivak retainer agreements and an accounting of any
income thereunder.
6
SD ¶ 14.
Stein denied any wrongdoing and also declined Spivak’s requests. On December 21,
2010, Stein emailed Spivak. He insisted that all Stein-Spivak clients were his clients alone and
asserted that providing copies of the agreements or an accounting would violate attorney-client
privilege. Stein also advised Spivak that Spivak’s positions could violate Spivak’s fiduciary
duties and subject him to liability. Thereafter, communications between Stein and Spivak
deteriorated further. SD ¶¶ 15, 17.
Late last year, Maloney rendered legal services for Stein and Kramer with respect to this
case and other mass joinder actions. By year’s end, their relationship also frayed. Stein then
sent emails to third parties that vilified Maloney and revealed information Maloney disclosed to
Stein in contemplation of Stein rendering legal services for Maloney. MD ¶ 7 SD ¶ 9.
Following the February 3, 2011, Court hearing in which BofA expressed concerns
regarding Internet postings and mailings purportedly involving Kramer, Stein and K2, each of
Spivak and Tomaszewski separately expressed their concerns to Stein. Thereafter, Stein at
various times refused to communicate with one or more of Jones, Tomaszewski and Spivak and
at various times threatened that he or “clients” would commence legal action against the

6
Moving Parties are not aware of a named plaintiff in this action who has paid a retainer. The
engagement letters prepared by Spivak did not include a retainer. However, the Moving Parties
have been advised that Stein modified the form to include a retainer. TD ¶ 31, SD ¶¶ 45-49, JD
¶ 13.


5
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
foregoing and Maloney.
7
TD ¶¶ 20-21, SD ¶¶ 8, 15, 17, JD ¶ 5.
Over the last few months, Stein has repeatedly implied that he will cause third parties
with whom he has a relationship to commence legal actions against one or more of the Moving
Parties. TD ¶ 21, SD ¶¶ 8, 15, 17.
Regarding the 4AC, Stein advised his co-counsel that he or his office had completed
certain required tasks. He then went so far as to “instruct” Apex not to communicate with clients
they or Spivak had originated because he had taken care of the matter. Stein never delivered the
product he said had been completed. TD ¶ 19, SD ¶ 20.
Stein next asserted that Spivak and/or Apex were responsible for the tasks Stein did not
perform and threatened legal actions for their alleged failures. He has, of late, also repeatedly
complained that he is the only person doing any work, even as he apparently delegated to others
the work he alleged he was staying up all night to do and has excluded the team. TD ¶ 20, SD ¶¶
20, 52, JD ¶ 5.
Stein also has alternatively refused to sign written agreements with co-counsel, promised
to prepare and deliver agreements and stated that it was “unlikely” he would sign agreements.
TD ¶ 14, SD ¶ 29.
During a hearing on March 9, 2011, without naming him, Stein advised the Court that he
intended to move for the admission of Michael S. Riley (“Riley”) to appear pro hac vice.
8
At no
time did Stein consult with Moving Parties regarding Riley’s involvement in this action. TD
¶¶ 29, 30, SD ¶¶ 21, 23, 30-31, MD ¶¶ 8-9, JD ¶¶ 8-9, 11.
Until February 2011, each member of the legal team had been accorded the opportunity
by the other members of the team to review, comment on and approve all important motions and

7
The broader situation of improper and inaccurate client solicitations involving mortgage
litigation prompted the California Department of Real Estate to issue a “Consumer Alert”
entitled “Fraud Warning Regarding Lawsuit Marketers Requesting Upfront Fees for So-Called
‘Mass Joinder’ or Class Litigation Promising Extraordinary Home Mortgage Relief.” See
Exhibit G to Spivak declaration
8
Stein repeatedly refers to Riley as the former head of the Florida antifraud division. Mr. Riley
does not appear to have served in such capacity. See SD ¶ 22 and Exhibit B to SD.


6
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
other court filings. On February 9, 2011, without prior consultation with Moving Parties, Stein
and Davis sent a notice to BofA counsel for a proposed ex parte motion regarding the addition of
394 plaintiffs to the Ronald action. TD ¶ 23, SD ¶ 19, JD ¶ 7.
On February 28, 2011, for the first time, a material filing was made without consultation
with any of the Moving Parties when Stein and Davis filed an application for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO Application”) with respect to imminent foreclosures against certain
Apex-originated clients. Stein had informed Spivak that Davis was adapting a preliminary
injunction motion written by Spivak and assured Spivak that he would have ample time to
review and vet the draft TRO Application. TD ¶ 25, SD ¶¶ 25-26, JD ¶¶ 8, 9.
Instead of complying with the legal team’s general agreement and practice and contrary
to Stein’s specific assurances, Davis filed the TRO Application without review by Spivak or the
other Moving Parties of any draft or supporting research. Following two hearings, the Court
denied the TRO Application and certified the decision for interlocutory review. After the second
hearing, Stein and Spivak agreed that Stein would write the first draft of a petition (herein, the
“TRO Petition”) for Spivak’s review, oversight of additional research, revisions and approval.
TD ¶¶ 25-26, SD ¶¶ 27-28, MD ¶ 8, JD ¶ 8.
Thereafter, Spivak began work on the TRO Petition. He reviewed the research
undertaken by Stein’s office for the TRO Application, undertook additional research and emailed
to the team that research, an outline of issues to be researched for the TRO Petition and potential
bases for the writ. SD ¶¶ 27-28.
Following a hearing in this Court on the Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions
against Stein, Stein advised Spivak that he would send the draft TRO Petition to Spivak by
Thursday evening (March 10, 2011) or Friday morning (March 11, 2011), at “the latest.” When
Spivak did not receive the draft, he repeatedly emailed and texted Stein inquiring as to the status
of the draft. Stein never responded and later told Tomaszewski in a phone conversation that he
had no recollection of receiving any emails or texts from Spivak regarding the TRO Petition., TD
¶ 26, SD ¶ 28.
Without consultation with Moving Parties: (1) on March 14, 2011, Stein and Davis filed


7
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Applications for Riley to appear pro hac vice in the Appellate Court (the “Riley Applications”);
(2) on March 15, 2011, Stein, Davis and Riley filed a so-called “Preliminary Opposition (and
Memorandum) in Response to Defendants’ Petition and Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Other
Appropriate Relief” (the “Preliminary Opposition”); and (3) on March 15, 2011, Stein, Davis
and Riley filed the TRO Petition. TD ¶ 25, SD ¶ 30, MD ¶¶ 8-9, JD ¶ 8.
Stein and Davis deleted from the captions of each of the Court of Appeals filings the
remaining members of the Ronald legal team – Spivak, Jones, Maloney and Tomaszewski. In
their place (apparently before his pro hac application had been approved), Stein added Riley, a
stranger to this action.
9
TD ¶ 30, SD ¶¶ 18, 37.
Moving Parties learned of the Court of Appeals filings from a Riley Application emailed
to Jones and Tomaszewski and a casual comment made by Davis to Spivak when Spivak called
Davis to coordinate research for the BofA Petition. Despite repeated requests to Stein and Davis,
neither of them emailed (or otherwise provided) any of the substantive Court of Appeals filings
to Moving Parties. TD ¶¶ 25-29, SD ¶¶ 18, 30-31, MD ¶ 8, JD ¶¶ 8-9.
Then, Spivak again requested copies of the filings by email on March 21, 2011. Stein’s
reply made it clear that Stein would not provide copies of the Court of Appeals filings to the
Moving Parties. Further, Stein warned: “I believe many of the Ronald clients have or shall
imminently file suit against SML and Apex.” See Exhibit A to SD.
10

Though the BofA Petition unsurprisingly includes the Moving Parties in the service list,
the Moving Parties are excluded from the service lists for the Stein-Davis-Riley Court of
Appeals filings. See Exhibits C, D and E to the Spivak declaration.

9
According to a “White Paper” dated January 15, 2011 accessed on February 26, 2011, Riley is
apparently one of Stein’s partners in a legal marketing network called Hartford Dunn.
According to the White Paper, the purpose of Hartford Dunn is to enter into affiliate agreements
with lawyers nationwide who are interested in pursuing litigation pertaining to mortgages. See
Exhibit F to Spivak Declaration.
10
Sunday night, March 27, 2011, Stein sent an email to Spivak and Tomaszewski seeking
assistance with respect to a matter related to the TRO Petition. He attached a PDF of an
unsigned version of the TRO Petition to that email. TD ¶ 32, SD ¶ 35.


8
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Team cohesion and trust was further eroded by the Riley Applications. Rule 9.40(a) of
the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) provides, in part: “No person is eligible to appear as
counsel pro hac vice under this rule if the person is . . . Regularly engaged in substantial
business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.” Riley is ineligible to be
admitted pro hac vice. His admission also is illogical, since he focuses on business endeavors,
ended his litigation practice many years ago and is not admitted in California. SD ¶¶ 18, 22, MD
¶ 6.
The logical inference is that Riley’s name was added to the Court of Appeals filings to
give credibility to Riley’s marketing efforts on behalf of Hartford Dunn.
Within the last week, Stein and Davis filed an Opposition to Motion for Leave to
Intervene Filed by Asset Guardian Plan, Inc. without including Spivak’s comments and a Status
Report without first circulating it for review, despite a specific email discussion between Stein
and Spivak on that subject. Davis was copied on that email discussion. SD ¶ 38.
III. ARGUMENT
A. This Court has the power, and indeed the obligation, to issue an appropriate order
to facilitate the proper and efficient administration of this case
It is a well-recognized principle that this Court has statutory and inherent equitable power
to issue orders to implement the efficient administration of justice. The California legislature has
codified this principle by granting power to every court to provide for the orderly conduct of
proceedings before it. Code Civ. Proc. §128(a) provides in pertinent part:
(a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:
(1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence.
(2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or persons
empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority.
(3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers.
(4) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a
judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.
(5) To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of
all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in
every matter pertaining thereto.
Code Civ. Proc. §187 also provides in pertinent part:


9
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute,
conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into
effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of
proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable
process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most
conformable to the spirit of this Code.
The often repeated formulation of this Court’s power was first stated by the
California Supreme Court in Hays v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 2d 260, 264 (1940).
There is nothing novel in the concept that a trial court has the power to exercise a
reasonable control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before it.
Such power necessarily exists as one of the inherent powers of the court and such
power should be exercised by the courts in order to insure the orderly
administration of justice.
This Court has broad discretion in issuing orders to ensure proper management of
this case and efficient administration of justice. See Lu v. Sup. Ct., 55 Cal. App. 4
th
1264
(1997); Asbestos Claims Facility, et al., v. Berry & Berry, 219 Cal App. 3d 9 (1990).
Pursuant to Standards of Judicial Administration (“SJA”), Standard 2.1, this
Court has express broad case management authority to keep the proceedings efficient.
Standard 2.1 provides: “Trial courts should be guided by the general principle that from
the commencement of litigation to its resolution, whether by trial or settlement, any
elapsed time other than reasonably required for pleadings, discovery, preparation, and
court events is unacceptable and should be eliminated.”
This case has been designated as, a complex case pursuant to CRC Rule 3.400 and Rule
3.401. Because this case is a complex case, the Court has an additional obligation to act early to
see that it is efficiently administered. “In complex litigation, judicial management should begin
early and be applied continuously and actively, based on knowledge of the circumstances of each
case.” SJA, Standard 3.10(a). The Court’s broad authority and mandate to assertively ensure
efficient administration of a complex case such as this case are well established. See, e.g.,
Asbestos Claims Facility, et al., v. Berry & Berry, 219 Cal. App. 3d 9 (1990).
California courts also look to federal courts for guidance on the management of complex
civil litigation, and in particular with respect to appointment of lead counsel. See Asbestos
Claims Facility, et al., v. Berry & Berry supra. In Asbestos Claims Facility, et al., v. Berry &


10
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Berry, the court observed: “Several federal courts have concluded that in complex civil
litigation, the trial court’s inherent power extends to the appointment of general or liaison or lead
counsel to perform certain functions on behalf of several parties with common interests, and that
such an appointment does not interfere with a party’s right to select its own counsel.” 219 Cal
App. 3d at 20.
Consistent with SJA, Standard 3.10(a)’s admonition that case management “begin early
and be applied continuously and actively,” when it appears that an appointment of co-lead
counsel should be changed, the Court should act to make an appropriate change.
B. The legal team, as originally structured, is no longer functioning efficiently which
will adversely affect the team’s ability to effectively represent Plaintiffs
As is common in complex litigation, Plaintiffs comprise numerous individuals who
initially retained separate counsel (or sub-sets of the counsel in this case). To effectively and
efficiently represent the clients and administer the case, counsel coordinated their efforts and
forged a team. Pursuant thereto, counsel appointed Stein and then Spivak to be co-lead counsel.
Through the leadership of co-lead counsel, the case has been brought to this point.
However, as demonstrated above and by the annexed declarations, the communications
and working relationships among the Stein faction of Plaintiffs’ legal team and the remainder of
the legal team has fractured, with threats, unilateral acts and lack of consultation and approvals.
The California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism (the “Guidelines”)
set the standard of civility in the practice of law in California and have been adopted by the State
Bar’s Board of Governors. Section 4 of the Guidelines provides: “An attorney’s
communications about the legal system should at all times reflect civility, professional integrity,
personal dignity, and respect for the legal system.” Under this section, an attorney” should not
disparage the intelligence, integrity, ethics, morals or behavior of the court or other counsel,
parties or participants when those characteristics are not at issue,” or “create a false or
misleading record of events.”
Pursuant to CRPC Rule 3-700( C )(3), a member should withdraw when “The inability to
work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by


11
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
withdrawal.”
Failing to provide or serve Moving Parties with the TRO Petition, the Riley Applications
and the Preliminary Opposition violates the CRC and imperiled the filings. CRC Rule 8.18
provides: “Except as these rules provide otherwise, the reviewing court clerk must not file any
record or other document that does not conform to these rules.” (Emphasis supplied).
CRC Rule 8.25(a) provides:
(1) Before filing any document, a party must serve, by any method permitted by the Code
of Civil Procedure, one copy of the document on the attorney for each party separately
represented, on each unrepresented party, and on any other person or entity when
required by statute or rule.
(2) The party must attach to the document presented for filing a proof of service showing
service on each person or entity required to be served under (1). The proof must name
each party represented by each attorney served.
Moving Parties are not seeking removal of any counsel in this case, but: (i) the un-
designation of one of the co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs, and (ii) the separation of the attorneys
into separate teams on behalf of their respective clients. It may be that the teams will be able to
coordinate their joint prosecution of the case, but the separation of the teams will, at least,
eliminate the expectations, acrimony and reliance of any member of the current team on any
other member of that team. That will be in the best interests of all clients.
Without considering whether Stein’s client solicitations or Hartford Dunn violate any
applicable law or rule, or whether there is anything amiss in any of Stein’s or Davis’ business or
legal relationships, the lack of transparency to the legal team during a period of heightened
scrutiny of these matters by BofA, the Department of Real Estate and others deprives Moving
Parties of the ability to monitor the circumstances in which they are providing legal services and
subjects them to the risk of misleading clients and prospective clients. That impairs their
credibility and erodes the client-lawyer relationship and with it the ability of all counsel to
effectively represent clients. See, e.g., CRPC, Rule 1-400.
Moving Parties are seeking to act in the best interests of all Plaintiffs by avoiding the
peril that arises from uncertainty and inconsistency. The issue in this Motion is not the quality of
any Court filing or decision to this date. Until recently, the team’s assignments, expectations and


12
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unity of purpose existed to best advance the common good of all plaintiffs. Animosity,
intimidation, opaqueness and uncertainty about what one counsel may do as a “lone ranger”
diminishes the strength of the team and imperils the outcome.
Counsel have entered into engagement agreements with clients by which they have
rights, duties and potential liability. If they are excluded from the decision-making process and
the development and execution of strategy, Moving Parties may fail to fully discharge their
duties and, in any event, clients may receive less service than they otherwise could and should
receive from a unified team that works together to maximize results.
Given the circumstances and dysfunction described herein, clients are best served by
discharging Stein as co-lead counsel and as counsel for clients who do not object to his
discharge. Then, without apparent authority or misplaced authority, Stein, Davis and Moving
Parties and their respective clients can work together, or not; but at least the cloud of uncertainty
and risk and intimidation will be lifted.
C. Moving Parties are the originating lawyers for a majority of the Ronald clients and
may be the originating or co-counsel for nearly all of the Ronald clients
Stein is not co-lead counsel because of any action by any client or even this Court. He is
co-lead counsel because of consensual designation as such by the other counsel in this matter,
particularly Apex.
Pursuant to their engagement agreements, Moving Parties have been engaged by not less
than 134 of the 247 plaintiffs in the Ronald action. The actual number likely is materially larger.
However, Stein has under his exclusive custody and control Stein-Spivak engagement letters
presumably returned by more than 100 of the plaintiffs added to the TAC and additional
engagement agreements for potential future plaintiffs. Stein has refused to provide these
engagement letters to the Moving Parties.
D. The legal team has grown and Stein is not required as co-lead counsel or as a
counsel with respect to clients who do not object to his discharge
Since the filing of this case, the legal team has grown. It started with the addition of
Spivak and Davis in May 2010 and then, shortly thereafter, Maloney. Now, with the formation
of SML, Moving Parties have a deeper bench of counsel, including, within SML alone, two


13
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
litigators, each with more than 20 years of experience, and two other lawyers with extensive
litigation experience. Moving Parties can bring in additional lawyers, if necessary.
Stein and Apex had entrepreneurial drive in filing this case. This Motion does not allege
that Stein’s experience and wisdom would not be valuable in a cohesive, well managed,
transparent, mutually-respectful team with common objectives and focus. Rather, this Motion
suggests that regardless of how talented any one lawyer may be, animosity, inconsistency,
unilateral acts, opaqueness, disorganization and unaligned goals outweigh the talent and will
harm the best interests of our clients.
E. Granting relief in a timely manner will not only facilitate the efficient
administration of justice, but it will avoid known future pitfalls, saving future
judicial resources and protecting Plaintiffs.
The dysfunction among the Plaintiffs’ legal team will adversely affect Plaintiffs if the
Requested Relief is not granted. Further, clients also will be deprived of the leadership of the
lawyers of their selection. Indeed, a lack of clarity in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s roles can not only
prejudice clients’ interests, but also lead to future litigation. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bersntein LLP, 95 Cal. App. 4
th
154 (2002).
Replacing Stein as co-lead counsel will not inhibit the representation of all Plaintiffs and
likely will cause only a brief interruption in case management as information, leadership and
responsibilities are re-assigned and experienced litigators are added to the team. Stein may
continue to represent those clients who engage him alone or insist on his representation. At
times, the separate plaintiffs’ legal teams may file joinders. They may cooperate (or be required
to do so) in assignment of responsibilities to avoid duplication of effort or additional burdens on
Defendants or the Court. Where counsel disagree, they will assert their independent positions. It
is not anticipated that this will unduly burden Plaintiffs, Defendants or this Court.
The time for the Court to take remedial action is now, before prejudice occurs to
Plaintiffs and to avoid any future readily avoidable litigation.
F. Moving Parties are entitled to an order compelling Stein to turn over all
engagement letters and to an accounting.
To properly represent their joint or separate clients, Moving Parties must be able to


14
MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
confirm their duties and responsibilities to, and their relationships with, their clients. Stein has
concealed both contractual and financial information from Moving Parties. It is critical that
there be complete transparency among counsel working on behalf of clients in this matter and
who would be entitled to share in a common pool of compensation derived from those clients.
Moving Parties are attempting to clarify the status of the engagement agreements entered
into as a result of the Stein-Spivak collaboration and the clients’ intentions. By the hearing of
this motion, the foregoing may be clarified. However, to the extent Moving Parties are unable to
reach any of the clients or the clients do not respond, Moving Parties require copies of the client
agreements returned to Stein and/or issued by Stein so that the parties can resolve their rights and
obligations and serve the best interest of clients, whether currently plaintiffs or prospective
plaintiffs. Moving Parties will not be able to reach clients who signed Stein-Spivak agreements
where the identities or other contact information of those clients are known only to Stein, unless
he produces the necessary information.
Without those agreements – including all versions issued, received and modifications,
supplements and replacements – Spivak has no way to know who was given an offer to retain
him, who attempted to retain him, who did retain him, who has discharged him, or any of the
facts or circumstances pertaining thereto. Without the solicitations pertaining to new proposed
clients, Moving Parties have no way to ascertain whether any misrepresentations were made in
the nature of those presented to the Court on February 3, 2011, or otherwise. Without the
requested information, Spivak has no way to know whether or how Stein responded to the
voicemails and emails Spivak forwarded to him.
In turn, clients who may have retained the team based in whole or in part on Spivak’s
participation may not know what has proceeded – or, if Stein has replaced Spivak in those
agreements, may not realize why that occurred or the implications thereof.
None of Spivak, Jones, Tomaszewski, SML, Apex, or Spivak Law Group has ever been
paid by or on behalf of any plaintiff or prospective plaintiff in this action; to the contrary, each of
the foregoing has expended their own funds and thousands of hours. Based upon reports to the
Moving Parties, Stein has collected fees and overhead directly and indirectly from clients,


1
TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TOMASZEWSKI DECLARATION
I, Christopher Tomaszewski, declare that:
1. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. If called to testify, I could and
would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge.
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
California. I am a partner in Apex Legal Group PC (“Apex”). I have been a partner in Apex and
Apex has been a counsel of record in the Ronald action since the filing of the lawsuit on March
12, 2009.
1

Procedural Background
2. On March 12, 2009, 17 individuals filed a complaint in this action in Los Angeles
County Superior Court. Sixteen of the original 17 plaintiffs were Apex clients. Apex and Stein
were introduced by Stein’s wife, the 17
th
client, after she was referred to Apex for help with a
loan modification request. The bank refused to issue any modification or relief. Thus, Apex and
Stein agreed to work together on a lawsuit. The caption on the complaint showed the counsel for
all Plaintiffs as being Bridget Jones (“Jones”), Stein and me.
3. On or about June 12, 2009, 44 named plaintiffs lodged with the Court a proposed
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 43 clients were originated by Apex and one client by Stein,
though because counsel agreed to work together, no distinction was made. The caption again
showed the counsel for all Plaintiffs as being Jones, Stein and me.
4. On March 26, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The
SAC consisted of 41 named Plaintiffs and retained the same caption as the prior complaints.
5. On May 14, 2010, on behalf of his clients and others, Kenin M. Spivak (“Spivak”)
proposed to intervene in this action because, he alleged, no progress had been made in getting a
good complaint on file. Judge Jones denied the application because it had been made ex parte.
6. Following rejection of the intervention, after consultation among counsel and with

1
In submitting this declaration, the declarant does not intend to waive and does not waive any
privileges, including, without limitation, work product protection.


2
TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Apex’s approval, Stein invited Spivak to join the case as co-lead counsel with specific
responsibility regarding pleadings and research. Stein retained leadership of discovery,
procedures and certain administrative matters. Separately, Stein recruited Erikson Davis
(“Davis”) pursuant to a financial arrangement between them.
7. On May 24, 2010, Plaintiffs named James Agate as a defendant by Doe amendment.
Thereafter, Agate’s counsel, Phillip Kramer, exercised a CCP §170.6 peremptory challenge to
Judge Jones. The Defendants objected to the preemptory challenge, among other things
observing a prior relationship between Stein and Kramer. That objection was overruled by Judge
Carl West. The Ronald Action then was assigned to this Court.
8. Consistent therewith, on June 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an
Order to Show Cause and for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court denied the application.
The lawyers on that caption – for all Plaintiffs - remained the lawyers on the caption of all filings
in the Ronald action until about a month ago. Those lawyers were: Spivak, Stein, Jones, Davis
and me. About a month ago, Ted Maloney (“Maloney”) was added to the caption as an SML
LLP (“SML”) attorney. As I had been aware for many months as a result of our email
interaction, Maloney had been assisting Spivak since about the time Spivak joined the case. The
caption again changed far more profoundly when Stein and Davis secretly filed several pleadings
with the Court of Appeals, as described below, deleting Spivak, Jones, Maloney and me – and
adding Michael S. Riley (“Riley”), a stranger to this action.
9. On June 14, 2010, this Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a Third Amended
Complaint (“TAC”). Spivak was the principal drafter of the TAC, assisted primarily by
Maloney, though all members of the legal team also contributed to, and approved of, the product.
The TAC, filed on July 7, 2010, named 249 plaintiffs. Spivak prepared engagement agreements
to be used by Stein-Spivak and Apex, drafts of which were circulated among Spivak, Stein,
Jones and me and approved by all of us. The agreements drafted by Spivak did not require any
plaintiff to pay a retainer or to reimburse costs, unless the action was successful.
10. Apex has never been paid for or by any client to be included in the Ronald action.
To the contrary, we have expended considerable sums and thousands of hours, none of which


3
TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
will be reimbursed unless there is a recovery, or some other source of money.
11. I estimate that of the 249 named plaintiffs in the TAC, Apex originated 128 clients,
Spivak alone originated about 10 clients, Stein alone originated two clients (his wife and one
other), Davis originated one client and the Stein-Spivak collaboration originated about 110
clients.
12. On August 2, 2010, the Defendants lodged a Notice of Removal. Spivak directed
the successful effort to remand the case, including being the principal drafter of the remand
motion and reply, and arguing the motion before Judge Real.
13. After the case was remanded, Spivak similarly directed the response to BofA’s
demurrer and motion to strike and was the principal drafter of Plaintiffs’ opposition and reply.
He then successfully argued the motion in this Court, resulting in the Court’s overruling the
BofA’s demurrer in all material respects. However, the Court certified for interlocutory review a
writ by BofA with respect to the TAC’s first cause of action. BofA filed its petition for that writ
on or about March 11, 2011 (the “BofA Petition”).
Organization of Legal Team
14. When the Ronald action was filed, Apex agreed with Stein that Stein would be lead
counsel in court, subject to there being full and complete consultation with Apex and Apex
managing relationships with the Apex-originated clients. There were many discussions about
financial splits. In May 2010, when Spivak joined the legal team, I proposed to have all lawyers
sign an agreement. Stein refused. He insisted that “our agreement” stood without involving
Spivak. Stein thereafter repudiated our agreement. Stein and I finally again reached agreement
on September 16, 2009, though Stein again refused to put our agreement in writing. He then
again repudiated our agreement and proposed unacceptable terms. To this day, Stein has refused
to agree to our financial arrangements and as recently as a few weeks ago emailed me to advise it
was “unlikely” he would agree to put anything in writing.
15. Nonetheless, by oral agreement and practice of the legal team – until the repudiation
of our agreements and practices by Stein and Davis over the last month – all plaintiffs have been
jointly represented by all counsel. At first, that meant Apex and Stein. Later, Spivak and Davis


4
TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
joined the team and then Maloney. Generally, Davis works for Stein and has also assisted
Spivak, while Maloney generally works with Spivak, though he has also assisted Stein.
However, to the best of my knowledge, until February (and excluding client solicitations) all
team members have contributed to court filings and other important aspects of the case and all
team members have approved of the actions of which we have had prior knowledge.
16. As the originating counsel for a majority of the plaintiffs, Apex designates (and has
the right to withdraw) “lead counsel” positions. At first, Apex designated Stein. Then, at Stein’s
recommendation and based on Apex’s independent investigation of Spivak, Apex agreed to split
the lead counsel position between Stein and Spivak because it would serve the best interests of
our clients. Events and Spivak’s temperament, wisdom and consultative nature since that time
more than justified our confidence in Spivak. By contrast, events and Stein’s temperament,
methodologies and threats have raised grave doubts about Stein’s transparency, civility,
collaboration and ability to lead.
17. Commencing in or about late November, I noticed a deterioration in Stein’s
relationship with Spivak. On a number of occasions, Stein sent the legal team agitated,
inappropriate and false attacks on Spivak.
18. Following the February 3, 2011 Court hearing in which BofA expressed concerns
regarding Kramer, Stein and K2, I expressed my concerns to Stein. Thereafter, Jones and I
decided to affiliate with SML LLP as “of counsel” while continuing Apex as a separate law firm.
19. At about the same time, Spivak had requested the legal team’s support with respect
to certain matters necessary to prepare the Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”). Apex and
Spivak worked closely to develop the necessary information. Stein at first ignored the process,
then told us he had taken care of what was needed and then purported to instruct Apex not to
contact clients Apex or Spivak had originated because he (Stein) already had the needed
information. To the best of my knowledge, Stein never supplied the information to the team.
20. Thereafter, Stein – as he had done throughout our financial negotiations – became
abusive. He threatened to sue Apex and me. At times, he refused to communicate with me and
at other times he would call repeatedly as though he was my best friend. Among other things,


5
TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stein insisted that Apex was responsible for Stein’s failure to deliver the information he told the
team he had already had, insisted that Apex come off the caption of the case and threatened to
sue Apex and me for manufactured slights, all in an effort to push Apex out of the case.
21. Stein has repeatedly made it clear to me that if he is challenged, he will do whatever
is necessary to win. He has threatened that clients and others will sue me.
Allocation of Responsibility
22. Spivak performed enormous amounts of work and has been assiduous in consulting
with co-counsel regarding his contributions and output.
23. By contrast, on February 9, 2011, without prior consultation with me – and to the
best of my knowledge without prior consultation with Jones or Spivak – Stein and Davis sent a
notice to BofA counsel for a proposed ex parte regarding the addition of 394 plaintiffs to the
Ronald action. I have no idea as to the provenance of these clients or any matters pertaining to
the terms on which they have engaged counsel. Until I am comfortable as to the foregoing, I do
not consent to their addition to the case.
24. Until February 28, 2011, each member of the legal team had been accorded the
opportunity by the other members of the legal team to review, comment on and approve all key
motions and other court filings. As a result, each member of the legal team has shared
responsibility for development of strategy and court filings. We were a true team.
25. Then for the first time – ever – since the inception of the Ronald action, I
was not given any opportunity to review or approve the following key motions: (1) the
application for a temporary restraining order filed by Stein and Davis on or about February 28,
2011which pertains to Apex-originated clients. (The Court denied the application and certified it
for a writ.); (2) pro hac vice applications apparently filed by Stein, Davis and Riley with the
Court of Appeals regarding Riley on or about March 14, 2011; (3) a “Preliminary Opposition
(and Memorandum) in Response to Defendants’ Petition and Peremptory Writ of Mandate or
Other Appropriate Relief” (“Preliminary Opposition”) filed by Stein, Davis and Riley on or
about March 15, 2011 pertaining to the Bank of America (“BofA”) petition for a writ; and (5) a
petition for a writ (the “TRO Petition”) filed on or about March 15, 2011 by Stein, Davis and


6
TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Riley regarding the Court’s decision denying to the February 28 TRO application.
26. When I finally reached Stein by phone, he denied having received the many emails
Spivak sent the team (including Stein, Davis and me) regarding his suggestions for the TRO
Petition, the status of the TRO Petition draft and the timing of Spivak’s review of the draft. He
also denied recalling any conversations with Spivak agreeing to share the briefing
responsibilities with Spivak.
27. Stein’s lack of recall of emails, conversations and events makes it very difficult to
work as a team in the best interests of our clients. Further, these attributes are inconsistent with
leadership.
28. I expected all key correspondence and court filings to be reviewed by Spivak.
Spivak’s apparent exclusion was diametrically contrary to my wishes and the best interests of our
clients, in that it deprived them of Spivak’s perspective and talents.
29. Neither Apex nor I were sent any drafts or the final version of the Riley applications,
Preliminary Opposition or TRO Petition, despite my repeated requests for those documents and
Spivak’s repeated requests, on which I was copied. Further, neither Apex nor I were formally
served with any of the foregoing filings, except that I did receive by email a copy of one of the
Riley applications.
30. None of Stein, Davis or Riley consulted with me regarding adding Riley to the
Ronald legal team or Riley’s application for admission pro hac vice. I have never met Riley, nor
had any interaction with him of any nature. To the best of my knowledge he has never rendered
any services with respect to the Ronald action. I do not consent to his addition to the team.
31. Then, Stein carried out his threat to delete Apex from the caption of the Appeals
Court filings. He also deleted Jones, SML, Spivak, Maloney and me. In our place, he inserted
Riley – a person who, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with this lawsuit. I am not aware of
any valid reason for our exclusion or Riley’s inclusion.
32. On Sunday night, March 27, 2011, Stein sent an email to Davis, Spivak and me
seeking assistance with respect to a matter related to the TRO Petition. He attached a PDF of an
unsigned version of the TRO Petition to that email.

7
TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

33. I have been advised by prospective clients that Stein is charging retainers for
inclusion in the Ronald case. No such change in business model was discussed with me or
approved by me. Assuming, however, that the model is being implemented lawfully, Apex is
entitled to participate in such revenue as co-counsel.
34. We have received phone calls from clients who have expressed concern about the
information on the internet about Stein and Kramer, as detailed in certain consumer alert blogs.
Our clients have questioned whether Stein is acting in their best interests. This concern hampers
our ability to work with clients. By not knowing all of the relevant facts on a “real time” basis,
we are made to look untruthful in front of our clients, to the detriment of the team‟s relationship
with the clients and hence, to the detriment of our ability to represent our clients.
35. The legal team has fractured into a group that includes Apex, SML and most of the
clients on one side and a group that includes Stein and Davis on the other. Apex does not believe
the breaches in agreement, decorum or professional conduct are reparable. Apex therefore
withdraws its consent that Stein be a lead counsel in this action and further withdraws consent
that Stein continue to represent our clients, absent a contrary instruction from any client.
36. Together with Spivak, Maloney and the experienced senior litigators Spivak has
attracted to SML and, if necessary, other counsel we can attract, Apex believes that SML and
Apex can properly represent the interests of our clients and can do so within the bounds of the
professional standards that govern lawyers in California.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March
27, 2011, at Sacramento, California.


____________________________
Christopher Tomaszewski


1
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SPIVAK DECLARATION
I, Kenin M. Spivak, declare:
2. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. If called to testify, I could and
would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge.
3. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
California. I am co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in the Ronald Action.
1

Background
4. In early 2010, I learned of the Ronald action. On behalf of my clients and others, I
sought to intervene because no progress had been made in getting a good complaint on file.
Judge Jones denied the application because it had been made ex parte.
5. Thereafter, Mitchell J. Stein (“Stein”), Christopher Tomaszewski (“Tomaszewski”)
and Bridget Jones (“Jones”) asked me to join their legal team as co-lead counsel responsible for
directing pleadings and research. I joined the Ronald action shortly before the case was assigned
to this Court in or about late May 2010. As co-lead counsel, with exceptions from late February
2011, I have developed key theories, directed most research, coordinated participation from other
team members, drafted or revised nearly all filings and argued key motions in court. Stein has
participated to varying degrees in the foregoing activities.
6. Conversely, I have participated to varying degrees in Stein’s areas of responsibility,
which include discovery, procedures, certain client relations matters and certain administrative
matters. For example, I prepared certain of our discovery requests and worked with an
accountant selected by Stein to assist in back-end support.
7. Importantly, until February 2011, the effort had been a group effort. To properly
represent the interests of our clients, this effort requires cooperation, support, transparency,
timeliness, diligence, focus and support of all co-counsel members. From May 2010 and until
February, 2011, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, all counsel contributed to

1
In submitting this declaration and the exhibits hereto, the declarant does not intend to waive
and does not waive any privileges, including, without limitation, work product protection.


2
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
substantially all aspects of the case, consulted on and approved of each other’s material
contributions to the case and jointly developed and executed strategy.
8. Both Stein and I have asserted to the other that the “other” has not lived up to
commitments regarding various matters. That, along with other factors described herein, has
caused my relationship with Stein to deteriorate to the point that Stein has repeatedly threatened
clients or others will sue me, or that they – or he – otherwise reserve their rights, with respect to
almost every matter as to which I have assisted Stein, his family and his businesses.
9. I have observed Stein’s relationships with Tomaszewski and Jones rapidly
deteriorate to the point he insisted their names come off the caption of the case and he refused to
communicate with them. I have observed Stein’s relationship with my colleague Ted Maloney
(“Maloney”), a senior lawyer with whom Stein also had a close relationship, collapse amid
Stein’s acerbic attacks in emails copying third parties.
10. While the legal team may be meeting and exceeding all requirements for a lawyer’s
service to a client, that will not continue to be true with the current ruptures. If the lawyers on a
joint prosecution team can’t work together, or some of the lawyers refuse to provide copies of
Court filings to other lawyers, or if there is no agreement on the financial or management
arrangements among the lawyers, it is only a matter of time before the clients suffer.
The Relationship Frays
11. Commencing in or about November 2010, I noted Internet postings linking Stein,
Phillip Kramer, K2 and others to solicitations of clients. These solicitations contained false
claims about the Ronald action. I also received reports of so-called marketing agents being paid
to solicit clients and large retainers being charged to potential plaintiffs in the Ronald action. I
discussed the foregoing with Stein and made clear my opposition to any improper marketing
efforts.
12. Stein denied any wrongdoing and denied he had received any retainers. He twice
arranged for a meal with Phil Kramer. My recollection is that the first lunch occurred before I
observed these postings. Kramer and I had a private lunch in Sherman Oaks. We discussed the
potential to work together, but concluded that we should not do so, though we would stay in


3
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
touch. The second meeting occurred among Kramer, Stein and me in Calabasas after a
prospective client had sent me an inaccurate mailing he had received. Kramer agreed to look
into my concerns.
13. Subsequently, Stein offered to arrange for me to meet with Kramer to explore my
concerns and whether SML or I would be interested in being engaged by Kramer or otherwise
participating in his law firm. Kramer and I scheduled a meeting, but Stein cancelled the meeting
on December 6, 2010, after I made clear that while I personally like Kramer, I would have no
interest in working with him if it turned out that his client solicitations violated professional
standards or law. Although neither Stein nor Kramer have admitted to me any violation of any
law or ethical obligation – and in fact both Stein and Kramer have denied any violations – my
strong position on this issue was apparently off-putting.
14. Thereafter, I advised Stein: that: (1) no client could become a client in this action if
there was uncertainty about that client’s provenance, (2) as to clients with an appropriate
provenance, after provision for a reserve for litigation costs, Stein and I were both entitled to
share in any retainers in accordance with our understandings, and (3) I needed copies of all
Stein-Spivak retainer agreements and an accounting of any income thereunder.
15. Stein refused to comply. On December 21, 2010, for the first time, Stein insisted all
clients except approximately 30 originated by me were his clients and that providing copies of
the agreements or an accounting would violate attorney-client privilege. Stein also advised me
that my positions could violate my fiduciary duties and subject me to claims.
16. Since late last year, Stein has become increasingly abusive and inconsistent in his
promises, demands and actions. The situation has materially worsened since the February 3,
2011 Court hearing in which BofA expressed concerns regarding Kramer, Stein and K2. After
that hearing, I again expressed concerns to Stein regarding client solicitations and his failure to
provide information on the Stein-Spivak clients.
17. Thereafter, Stein at various times refused to communicate with one or more of
Jones, Tomaszewski and me and at various times threatened legal action against some or all of
us, Apex Legal Group PC (“Apex”), Maloney and SML LLP (“SML”). At times, he appeared to


4
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
be threatening he would sue us and at other times he appeared to be threatening that “clients”
would sue us. It was never quite clear what our alleged sins were, other than disagreeing with
Stein as to case management, client solicitations, the allocation of any retainers properly
obtained and the allocation of any fees resulting from a settlement or judgment.
18. Further, Stein and his associate Erikson Davis (“Davis”) have abrogated the
agreements and practice among counsel by issuing ex parte notices and filing critical pleadings
in this Court and in the Court of Appeals without consulting with me or, to my knowledge, any
other team members. Stein and Davis refused to provide copies of recent Court of Appeals
filings to the Apex or SML lawyers in violation of the legal team’s agreement, practice, common
sense and Court of Appeals rules. Stein and Davis went so far as to delete the Apex and SML
lawyers from the caption of filings in the Court of Appeals and to insert the name of a Florida
businessman (admitted to practice in Florida), Michael S. Riley (“Riley”), who has nothing to do
with this case.
19. On February 9, 2011, without prior consultation with me, Stein and Davis sent a
notice to BofA counsel for a proposed ex parte regarding the addition of 394 plaintiffs to the
Ronald action. I have no idea as to the provenance of these clients or any matters pertaining to
the terms on which they have engaged counsel or whether they have signed some variant of the
Stein-Spivak engagement letter. Until I am comfortable as to the foregoing, I do not consent to
their addition to the case.
20. In connection with the preparation of the 4AC, Stein claimed that he had taken care
of certain important matters, but then failed or refused to provide the results for use in the 4AC.
He blamed the failure on Apex, even though he had specifically assumed responsibility and
“instructed” Apex to stay out of it. In connection with a separate matter for which Stein was
responsible and which he did not attend to (which may not have been due to any neglect or
wrongdoing on his part), he asserted that it was somehow my fault.
21. During a hearing on March 9, 2011, Stein advised the Court that he intended to
move for Riley’s admission to appear pro hac vice. Stein referred to Riley as the former head of
the antifraud division of Florida. Stein issued a press release on March 21, 2011 that repeated


5
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this assertion. See Exhibit B, a true and correct copy of that press release I downloaded on
March 24, 2011 from www.mjsteinassocaites.com/blog/index.php?p=219.
22. Riley was introduced to me by Maloney. We had lunch early this year in
Calabasas. Maloney and Riley told me that Maloney had introduced Riley to Stein. Riley told
me that he was thinking of working with Stein on litigation in Florida. He told me that early in
his career he was a junior prosecutor and laughed that Stein persisted in telling people that he
had been head of an antifraud division. Published Riley biographies I have read do not indicate
that he was head of a Florida antifraud division. I met Riley on two additional occasions. Riley
explained that he had been staying in California to undertake various business projects.
23. At no time did Stein or Riley consult with me regarding Riley’s proposed
involvement in this action.
24. From the time I joined the legal team and until February 2011, to the best of my
recollection, each member of the legal team had been accorded the opportunity by the other
members of the legal team to review, comment on and approve all motions and other court
filings.
25. On February 28, 2011, Stein and Davis filed an application for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO Application”) with respect to imminent foreclosures against certain of
the Apex-originated plaintiffs. Stein informed me that Davis was adapting a preliminary
injunction motion I had written and assured me that I would have ample time to review and “vet”
the draft TRO Application in accordance with the legal team’s agreement and practice.
26. Instead, Davis filed the TRO Application without my review. The Court denied the
TRO Application and certified the decision for interlocutory review.
27. Following the March 2, 2011 hearing, Stein and I agreed that Stein would write the
first draft of a petition (i.e., the “TRO Petition”) for my review, oversight of additional research,
revisions and approval. I started by researching the cases that had been located by Stein’s office
for the TRO Application and provided to the team my analysis, an outline of issues to be
researched for the TRO Petition and potential bases for the writ.
28. Following a hearing in this Court on the Defendants’ motion to compel and for


6
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sanctions against Stein, Stein advised me that the draft TRO Petition would be sent to me by
Thursday evening (March 10, 2011) or Friday morning (March 11, 2011), at “the latest.” When I
did not receive the draft, I repeatedly emailed and texted Stein inquiring as to the status of the
draft. Stein never responded.
29. Over the last few months, in an effort to isolate the Ronald action from the broader
disagreements between Stein and me, I sought to put into writing the financial terms on which
the legal team in Ronald is proceeding. At times Stein has agreed to do so – and even offered to
do so. As recently as this month he advised me that he had drafted agreements for our financial
arrangements pertaining to the Ronald action and would deliver the agreements to me. However,
no such agreements have been delivered. In emails to the team, Tomaszewski has asked for a
written agreement specifying the team’s financial terms, including a request emailed to all
counsel on March 6, 2011. Stein responded that his signing a written agreement was “unlikely.”
30. Without any prior notice or opportunity to review: (1) on March 14, 2011, Stein and
Davis filed the Riley Applications; (2) on March 15, 2011, Stein, Davis and Riley filed a so-
called “Preliminary Opposition (and Memorandum) in Response to Defendants’ Petition and
Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Other Appropriate Relief” (the “Preliminary Opposition”); and
(3) on March 15, 2011, Stein, Davis and Riley filed the TRO Petition.
31. On March 15, 2011, Jones sent me a copy of a Riley Application emailed to her by
Davis. Davis’ forwarded email does not show me as an intended recipient. Later that day, I
called Davis to coordinate his research support for a response to the BofA Petition. As a casual
aside, Davis told me the Preliminary Opposition and TRO Application had been filed. I
requested copies, which he agreed to send. I followed up with an email.
32. Despite my thereafter emailing and texting repeated requests to Stein and Davis for
copies of the filings and my receiving a second promise from Davis’ to send the filings in a
telephone conversation at approximately 9 AM on March 16, 2011, none of Stein, Davis or Riley
ever provided any of the documents filed with the Appellate Court to SML or me, or to my
knowledge, to Apex (excluding the Riley Application emailed to Jones and Tomaszewski by
Davis).


7
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33. On Monday, March 21, 2011, I made a final effort to obtain the filings from Stein
and Davis. Stein’s response was an emphatic “pound sand” as is seen in the email thread
annexed hereto in Exhibit A, which is a true and correct copy of an email thread containing
emails between Stein and me. Instead of sending the filings, Stein warned me that “many of the
Ronald clients have or shall imminently file suit against SML and Apex.” Stein later emailed me
to deny the accuracy of my response, deny involvement in the actions to be taken by clients and
“explain” that the writs constitute a separate case.
34. When all efforts to obtain the filings from Stein and Davis failed, I arranged for a
paralegal and copying service to go to the Court of Appeals and copy the filings.
35. On Sunday night, March 27, 2011, Stein sent an email to Davis, Tomaszewski and
me seeking assistance with respect to a matter related to the TRO Petition. He attached a PDF of
an unsigned version of the TRO Petition to that email
36. BofA properly served the BofA Petition on Apex and SML. See Exhibit C, a true
and correct copy of the proof of service for the BofA Petition. After reviewing the filings
obtained by SML on March 21, 2011, I observed there were no proofs of service for the Riley
Applications. I also observed that Stein, Davis and Riley excluded all Apex and SML lawyers
from their service lists for the TRO Application and Preliminary Opposition. See Exhibit D a
true and correct copy of the proof of service for the TRO Application and Exhibit E, a true and
correct copy of the proof of service for the Preliminary Opposition.
37. Stein and Davis deleted from the captions of each of those filings the remaining
members of the Ronald legal team – Jones, Maloney, Tomaszewski and me. In our place, Stein
added to the caption a stranger to this action, Riley.
38. In a final effort to rectify things, I exchanged emails with Stein and Davis last week.
All was for naught. First, Davis sent me a draft of an Opposition to Motion for Leave to
Intervene Filed by Asset Guardian Plan, Inc. for my review, but then disregarded my response,
deeming it to be utimely. Then, after a flurry of emails regarding the mutually agreed premise
that it was important I participate in the drafting of status reports – and would do so – Davis on
Friday, March 25, 2011 filed a Status Report without providing a draft to the legal team for its


8
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
review. I lack knowledge as to certain statements made in that Status Report and I disagree with
certain statements made in that Status Report. For example, I disagree with Stein being referred
to as lead counsel, rather than co-lead counsel.
Stein, Davis, Kramer and Riley Join Forces
39. Following the February 3, 2011 hearing, I stepped up my Internet searches
pertaining to Stein, Kramer and related matters. On or about February 26, 2011, my searches
turned up a legal marketing network/law firm named “Hartford Dunn.” I downloaded a “White
Paper” dated January 15, 2011. Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the White Paper I
downloaded from the Hartford Dunn website at http://hartforddunn.com/ on February 26, 2011.
40. Also as a result of these searches, on March 19, 2011 I downloaded from the
California Department of Real Estate a “Consumer Alert” entitled “Fraud Warning Regarding
Lawsuit Marketers Requesting Upfront Fees for So-Called ‘Mass Joinder’ or Class Litigation
Promising Extraordinary Home Mortgage Relief.” A true and correct copy thereof is annexed
hereto as Exhibit G.
41. Late last year, Davis informed me that he had taken a job “in the Valley.” He never
disclosed to me the identity of his employer, instead repeatedly referring to his employer in
generic terms. Within approximately the last month, Maloney advised me that Davis was
employed by Kramer or a Kramer law firm. Stein later confirmed the foregoing. In the last few
weeks, I learned that much of Davis’ work is for Stein and that Davis and Stein have an office in
the same building.
42. I have received phone calls from clients and prospective clients who have expressed
concerns about Internet postings regarding Stein and Kramer. Regardless of whether Davis or
Stein have, in general, the right to do whatever they want to do without telling me, in light of the
fevered pitch of Internet concerns and the concerns of clients and prospective clients who call
me, my credibility is challenged by not knowing these facts. When lawyer’s credibility is
impaired, the ability of that lawyer and that legal team to service the client is also impaired.
Clients
43. In connection with the filing of the TAC and our efforts thereafter to add clients to


9
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the case, Stein, our families and I phoned individuals who had contacted us to determine their
interest in becoming named plaintiffs in Ronald and to assess if they were qualified based on
criteria established by Stein. At Stein’s suggestion, I prepared a joint Stein-Spivak engagement
agreement therefore (later modified). I estimate that a total of more than 100 plaintiffs in the
TAC, as well as many dozens of prospective plaintiffs for later amendments, were generated by
our joint efforts. I also prepared an agreement for Apex. After several drafts were circulated and
approved by Stein, Stein told me he was using the agreement for new clients.
44. Because I was so busy writing the TAC and with other litigation matters I had taken
over from Stein relating to his family and businesses, Stein agreed to take responsibility for
causing the Stein-Spivak agreements to be delivered to the clients, executed and processed. He
also said that he had an accountant who could run the back-room operation.
45. The Stein-Spivak and Apex agreements I drafted and all modifications thereto I
prepared did not require any plaintiff to pay a retainer or to reimburse costs, unless the action
was successful.
46. As a result of and following this process, one of Stein’s responsibilities was to liaise
with the new clients, while I attempted to get a good complaint on file and attend to my other
responsibilities. Throughout this period, Stein confirmed he had been collecting the Stein-
Spivak engagement agreements and keeping our clients informed of what was occurring.
47. From the filing of the TAC and until today, hundreds of potential plaintiffs emailed
or called me and other members of the legal team. Stein agreed that given my absorption in
other matters, he would continue to liaise with the potential new plaintiffs. I forwarded the
emails and voice messages I received to Stein for that purpose. Stein’s job was to call (or obtain
someone on his staff to call) these individuals, qualify them based upon his criteria and arrange
for qualified individuals to sign the last version of the Stein-Spivak engagement letter I had
created in August 2010. Stein confirmed on numerous occasions he was doing just that.
48. Neither SML nor I have ever been paid by or on behalf of any plaintiff or
prospective plaintiff in this action.
49. Based upon reports to me from potential clients and brokers, I believe that Stein


10
SPIVAK DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
modified the Stein-Spivak engagement agreement to include retainers and that he has received
retainers. Thereafter, based on the same reports, I believe he deleted me from the agreement and
continued to collect retainers. I have never received copies of the engagement agreements
delivered to Stein or an accounting, despite repeated requests to Stein therefore.
50. My point is not that retainers are per se wrong. To the contrary, absent violations of
ethics or law, retainers are a good thing and even a necessary thing given the substantial costs of
litigation. However, Stein never disclosed to me any such modifications, even in the Stein-
Spivak agreement and to this day will not disclose to me the information to which I am entitled.
Conclusions
51. The legal team has fractured into a group that includes Apex and SML on one side
and a group that includes Stein and Davis on the other. I do not believe the breaches in
agreement, decorum or professional conduct are reparable.
52. While Stein may assert the ruptures occurred because of my acts or failings and/or
Maloney’s acts or failings and/or Apex’s acts or failings and that he alone is the only hope for
the Ronald plaintiffs, that makes no sense.
53. Excluding Maloney and me, SML’s lawyers include two litigators each with more
than 25 years of experience, another lawyer who has served as lead counsel in 300 trials and
adversary proceedings and another lawyer who previously litigated for national firms. If
necessary, SML will supplement our lawyers to ensure the plaintiffs are competently and
zealously protected.
54. Regardless of who is responsible for casting the first stone or for the first mistake or
for the last stone or last mistake, the rupture is beyond dispute. As a result, co-counsel can no
longer act together in the best interests of our clients.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March
28, 2011, at Beverly Hills, California.


Kenin M. Spivak
























SPIVAK DECLARATION


EXHIBIT A
1
Kenin M. Spivak
From: Kenin M. Spivak [KSpivak@SMLlawgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:50 PM
To: 'private.oceibod@gmail.com'; 'Erikson M. Davis'
Cc: 'Bridget Jones'; 'Christopher Tomaszewski'; 'Ted Maloney'
Subject: RE: Applications, Writs and Oppositions filed last week
Nitch,

You cleaily have lost it.

Fiist, you anu I specifically agieeu to jointly piepaie the wiit consistent with piioi piactice. By excluuing
me fiom the piepaiation of the wiit, you uiminisheu the potential foi it to succeeu anu violateu the tiust
of oui clients.

As to Biookstone, you appeai to be out of youi minu. Youi asseition is - as you know -categoiically false
(anu iiielevant to anything).

You have unilateially uestioyeu the team, violateu the iules of the Appellate Couit anu appaiently
thiough uefamatoiy mistiuths inuuceu clients to take malicious actions.

Appaiently, youi gieeu knows no bounus anu you have elevateu youi self-inteiest above youi uuty to the
Ronalu clients anu youi obligations to the team.

If you pioceeu with legal actions, the actions will be vigoiously uefenueu anu will iesult in the
appiopiiate actions against you.

The foiegoing is not intenueu a s a complete statement of my oi SNL's iights, iemeuies, claims oi
positions which aie ieseiveu.

Kenin

Kenin M. Spivak
Managing Partner
SML Law Group
450 North Roxbury Drive, Seventh Floor
Beverly Hills, California 90210 U.S.A.
Tel: +1.310.691.5811
Fax: +1.310.691.5809
E-mail: kspivak@SMLlawgroup.com
IRS AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTES:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by U.S. Treasury Regulations, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
This message and its attachments are sent from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential and protected
by privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email
or any attachment is prohibited. Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender unless the sender
2
specifically states otherwise. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the
sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: private.oceibod@gmail.com [ mailto:private.oceibod@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:40 PM
To: Kenin M. Spivak; 'Erikson M. Davis'
Cc: 'Bridget Jones'; 'Christopher Tomaszewski'; 'Ted Maloney'
Subj ect: Re: Applications, Writs and Oppositions filed last week

As I believe many of the Ronald clients have or shall imminently file suit against SML and Apex, and as the
writ is a different and new case, and as you reportedly either own or control Brookstone law which is being
sued by a Trustee in bankruptcy, I am certain you and Chris -- who were neither prepared nor capable of
protecting the clients with effective writ practice (i.e., had I died, no writ would have been or could have been
filed and indeed none was "in the works" by the Apex/SML team) -- understand the answer to the two of your
inquiries.

Sent from my HTC smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint!
----- Reply message -----
From: "Kenin M. Spivak" <KSpivak@SMLlawgroup.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:28 am
Subject: Applications, Writs and Oppositions filed last week
To: "&apos;RC Admin&apos;" <private.oceibod@gmail.com>, "&apos;Erikson M. Davis&apos;"
<erikdavis@att.net>
Cc: "&apos;Bridget Jones&apos;" <bridget@apexlegal.org>, "&apos;Christopher Tomaszewski&apos;"
<chris@apexlegal.org>, "&apos;Ted Maloney&apos;" <tmaloney@SMLlawgroup.com>
Nitch anu Eiik,

Bespite seveial iequests last week fiom me anu fiom Chiis (incluuing my phone conveisation with Eiik
anu whatevei communications Chiis oi Biiuget might have sepaiately hau with you), I have not ieceiveu
copies of the filings you maue last week in the Appeals Couit. Though copies weie piomiseu, they have
nevei come.

Please now senu by email the filings - if the exhibits aie voluminous, you can senu the table of contents
anu I can then auvise Eiik if I neeu any of the exhibits, which piesumably in all oi almost all cases I
alieauy have.

As I unueistanu it, you fileu two applications to aumit Riley, a wiit iegaiuing the TR0 anu some kinu of
opposition iegaiuing the BofA wiit. I am entitleu to copies of all of the foiegoing (as is the entiie team)
anu whethei oi not entitleu to copies (not that I coulu imagine "not" being entitleu to copies), the failuie
to pioviue copies can't possibly be in the best inteiests of oui clients.

Nuch the same infoimation is necessaiy foi the ieply to the pieliminaiy injunction motion anu uespite
chaiacteiizing the submissions as a "masteipiece" (anu it may be), theie might have been something left
out oi a mistake maue.

I have neithei ieceiveu copies as of couise as youi co-counsel, noi have I been officially seiveu with
copies as iequiieu by the iules.

3
Eithei way, let's enu this chiluishness with the simple attachment of some uocuments to an email anu the
push of the button entitleu "senu."

Thank you.

Kenin
Kenin M. Spivak
Managing Partner
SML Law Group
450 North Roxbury Drive, Seventh Floor
Beverly Hills, California 90210 U.S.A.
Tel: +1.310.691.5811
Fax: +1.310.691.5809
E-mail: kspivak@SMLlawgroup.com
IRS AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTES:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by U.S. Treasury Regulations, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
This message and its attachments are sent from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential and protected
by privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this email
or any attachment is prohibited. Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender unless the sender
specifically states otherwise. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the
sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3520 - Release Date: 03/21/11
























SPIVAK DECLARATION


EXHIBIT B
Mitchell Stein, Esq. Files Mass Joinder Lawsuit Against Bank of America in Florida « Mitchell J. Stein & Associates
http:/ / www.mjsteinassociates.com/ blog/ index.php?p=219[ 3/ 24/ 2011 1:56:50 PM]
Mitchell Stein, Esq. Files Mass Joinder Lawsuit Against
Bank of America in Florida
M.J. Stein & Associates has filed a mass joinder lawsuit against Bank of America (BOA) in Florida,
another of potentially the most significant and precedent-setting legal actions taken against lenders as
a result of the national foreclosure crisis, it was announced today by Mitchell J. Stein, Esq. of Mitchell
J. Stein & Associates.
The Firm has filed suit in Florida in behalf of a mass joinder of plaintiffs seeking damages and
injunctive relief as a result of the Bank’s fraud and violations of the Deceptive Practices Act in Florida.
The Firm is co-counsel in the case with former State of Florida Fraud Chief Michael Riley, Esq. The
case is Brewer v. Bank of America, Fla. 17th Circuit 11004756.
The lawsuit alleges Bank of America (BOA) perpetrated a massive fraud, also constituting unfair
competition upon borrowers that devastated the values of their residences, resulting in the loss of net
worth, and that BOA intended to deprive numerous rights and remedies for the problems they caused
the borrowers.
“The scale of fraud we allege was perpetrated by Bank of America in this case is the reason we are
working in partnership with Mike Riley, Esq., former State of Florida Fraud Chief. “Our case will prove
the Bank did not care about borrowers who would suffer from actions that would generate profits for
them and allow them get out before the truth of their activities was exposed,” said Mitchell J. Stein,
Esq. “The fraud we allege resulted in a mortgage meltdown which has lead to decreased home
values throughout the state of Florida.
According to court documents, the lawsuit claims the Bank disregarded underwriting standards and
implemented a massive fraud that was concealed from borrowers and other mortgagees on an
unprecedented scale. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the Bank’s actions, borrowers lost equity
in their homes, their credit ratings and histories were destroyed and they incurred unnecessary costs
and expenses.
Mr. Stein filed the suit along with former Florida State fraud chief Michael M. Riley.
Mitchell J. Stein & Associates is also leading the landmark lawsuit, Ronald v. Bank of America, Los
Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC409444, the first mass joinder case filed against the banks
following the bank fraud and economic “meltdown” of the 2008, in which the Firm is representing
more than one thousand California consumers against attempted foreclosures by Bank of America. In
October 2010, Mitchell J. Stein & Associates obtained an order in favor of all clients and against the
Bank from Federal Judge Manuel Real who to one of the Bank’s arguments as “absurd” and threw the
Bank out of Federal District Court with respect to the case. On January 11, 2011, a Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge ruled that the Ronald case states valid causes of action against Bank of
America allowing for discovery and depositions that are now being conducted as the case moves
forward in California State and Appellate Court. The case is rapidly moving forward in California State
and Appellate Court. The Firm is unaware of any mass joinder case in which the Court has accepted
the complaint and allowed Plaintiffs to proceed.
In addition to the landmark Ronald case, Mitchell J. Stein, Esq. has also filed lawsuits against other
major banks and lenders on behalf of aggrieved consumers including Locker v. Ally Bank, Superior
Court Los Angeles, BC409444. a mass joinder case against Ally Bank and its affiliates, formerly
CATEGORIES
Legal News (9)
Videos (1)
ARCHIVES
March 2011 (4)
February 2011 (1)
January 2011 (5)
LINKS
Brookstone Law
MJ Stein & Associates
NETWORKING
Register
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org
LEGAL NEWS
Mar 24, 2011 admin No Comments
Social Network:
MITCHELL J. STEIN – BIOGRAPHY LEGAL NEWS VIDEOS BANK LITIGATION PHILANTHROPY CONTACT US
Sign me up!
Type here and press enter to search
Mitchell Stein, Esq. Files Mass Joinder Lawsuit Against Bank of America in Florida « Mitchell J. Stein & Associates
http:/ / www.mjsteinassociates.com/ blog/ index.php?p=219[ 3/ 24/ 2011 1:56:50 PM]
GMAC, and Carlson v. J.P. Morgan, Superior Court Los Angeles, BC452262, a mass joinder case
against the J.P. Morgan Group on behalf of dozens of citizens and homeowners.
“Bad actors must be held responsible for the irreparable and massive damage done to people’s lives
and the State of Florida due to their unbridled greed and avarice,” said Mitchell J. Stein, Esq. “In this
case, we are representing thousands of homeowners who as a result of horrible practices have
wrongfully lost their homes or are facing wrongful foreclosure,” said Mitchell J. Stein, Esq.
ABOUT MI TCHELL J. STEI N & ASSOCI ATES
Mitchell J. Stein & Associates is a California-based law firm founded by M.J. Stein, Esq. a 25-year
award-winning litigator, trial lawyer, financier, and entrepreneur who has represented many of the
world’s largest companies and has been involved in some of the highest profile cases in the Nation’s
history. The Firm’s philosophy is based on the belief that their clients’ needs are of the utmost
importance and, as a result, a high percentage of the Firm’s business has been from repeat
customers and referrals. The Firm’s practice areas include Complex Litigation, Bank Problems,
Mergers & Acquisitions, Commercial and Residential Foreclosures , and Bankruptcy Litigation. Mr.
Stein is also the founder of VIPS Foundation (Victims of Injustice Pain and Suffering), through which
victims nationwide, over the last 15-years, have received assistance following unfortunate events that
subjected them to oppression or mistreatment. In that regard, Mr. Stein received the inaugural Mitchell
J. Stein Benefactor Award from the National Organization for Victims Assistance (NOVA) for his work
in protecting victims’ rights. Visit http://www.mjsteinassociates.com or http://www.dobielaw.org for
more information.
Leave a comment
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Comment
© 2010 MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES
"YOU HOLD THE LEASH"
























SPIVAK DECLARATION


EXHIBIT C
























SPIVAK DECLARATION


EXHIBIT D
























SPIVAK DECLARATION


EXHIBIT E
























SPIVAK DECLARATION


EXHIBIT F
Page | 1
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
White Paper - January 15, 2011
Mortgage Litigation Affiliate Practice
Loan Modifications Do Not Work! As the last two years have demonstrated, banks across the United
States are dragging their feet in the hope that homeowners get frustrated with the negotiation process and give up.
This is unfortunate, because the United States Government advanced more than $1 trillion in TARP money so that
the banks would not drag their feet. Instead, banks took the TARP money and began grabbing land. The land grab
has not yet reached epidemic proportions because of the presence of trial lawyers throughout America. While all
this has been happening, banks are denying 94% of all modification requests. If the bank does give the homeowner
a modification, it will most likely save them only a couple of dollars a month, will not reduce the principal balance,
and the bank always reserves the right to welch on the modification and go back on it. Knowing that the banks are
the ones guilty of wrongdoing, the banks then turn the borrowers attention to the loan modification lawyer or
other professional by using multi-million-dollar lobbying firms to pass legislation or otherwise politically blame
those who are merely doing what the President of the United States, Congress and the banks said to do: Modify
their mortgages. If the homeowner paid a third party to perform a modification, their lender will call and tell the
homeowner lies like, No one is working on a modification for you. They are a scam! or You should demand your
money back. We can do this for you for free. It makes this process all the more frustrating for the homeowner
because the banks want the homeowner to give up.
Banks do not have a financial incentive to modify mortgages any longer. Banks would much rather foreclose on the
property today and get to liquidate it at a time of their choosing. Their alternative is to most likely foreclose on the
property a year from now at a substantially reduced market value (it is projected that property values will decrease
an additional 20% in 2011). Furthermore, once banks modify a mortgage (if that event ever happens), they must
reduce the value of the mortgage asset on their balance sheet, which may trigger audits from regulators like the
FDIC and ultimately may result in the bank becoming bankrupt or insolvent.
In this history of America, litigation has often been the only source of relief.
Going back to the beginning and heritage of America, trial lawyers were the only ones standing in the background
as a safety net for the American citizenry.
Page | 2
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Throughout our history, many of the most important and far-reaching advancements of American society have
been achieved through the work of trial lawyers fighting for the rights of citizens and consumers. Without the
tireless work of these conscientious trial attorneys, much of the positive progress of our society and the numerous
consumer protections we take for granted would likely not exist. From social policy to the safety and quality of
consumer products, many of the most celebrated and important achievements of American social progress have
been the result of the litigation by dedicated lawyers working within the system to help citizens realize their rights
and protections.
Examples of changes that fell into the trial lawyers safety net, we consider a few from the many: From Brown vs
Board of Education of Topeka, the landmark decision that declared separate public schools for black and white
students unconstitutional and paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement, to Roe Vs Wade, the
Supreme Court decision that established that a right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,
to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998 that settled Medicaid lawsuits in 46 states, curtailed tobacco
marketing practices, established annual payments to states to compensate them for medical costs of caring for
persons with smoking-related illnesses and funding a national anti-smoking advocacy group, litigation has made it
possible for us to progress as a nation and become a more equal, just and fair country under the Law.
With this backdrop, trial lawyers are where the American public is turning today. Many experienced legislators and
experts believe litigation may be the only alternative. Hartford Dunn, LLP has evaluated the problem and believes
that mortgage litigation represents the only viable alternative at this time in American history to protect
homeowners: The backbone of our society.
Benefits of Mortgage Litigation
Actual Lawsuit Is Filed Affordable Solution for Homeowners
Can Provide Real Results Takes the Power Away From Banks
Powerful Litigation Attorney Protect Your Home
Representation
Hartford Dunn, LLP has evaluated lawyers state-by-state and, in working with lawyers, has put together a turn-key
system that allows you to start offering mortgage litigation as a readily accessible solution in a matter of hours. In
conjunction with lawyers across the Country, Hartford Dunn, LLP provides all the required backend services to
support the litigation process. Our focus is on providing the very best customer service and attorney services for
companion law firms nationwide. I am very confident that we will be able to help you and I think you will quickly
Page | 3
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
see why our customers find our attorneys to be the experts when it comes to helping them get their financial issues
resolved. Hereafter, we invite your attention to the best and the brightest lawyers in this field from our
experience and research:
If you have any questions, call us and we will discuss a particular attorney with you.
Nothing in this list infers that Hartford Dunn, LLP is affiliated with any attorney.
Asterisks (*) Denote Particular, Unique and Heightened Experience or Skills.
* In our view, these are the top lawyers -- nationally -- in the area of bank litigation brought by members
of the general public.
STATE NAME AKA FIRM
CA *Mitchell Stein The Doberman
Mitchell Stein & Associates
*Philip Kramer
Richard Kaslow
The General
George Baugh The Gladiator Law Offices of George L. Baugh
Paul N. Taylor Taylor Law Group
Louis R. Skip Miller Miller Barondess
Luan Phan Phan Law Center
NY John Golden Albert Buzetti & Associates
Ginsberg & Katsorhis
Brian Murray Murray, Frank & Sailer Llp
Paul Rheingold
Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, Shkolnik &
McCartney
Mitchell Pollack Mitchell Pollack & Associates
FL *Willie Gary
Andrew Needle Needle & Ellenberg
Mark Kaire Law Offices of Mark A. Kaire
James A. Ferraro The Ferraro Law Firm
TX Cynthia Chapman Caddell & Chapman
Page | 4
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Louis Haki
*Richard Haynes Racehorse
Miller Curtis & Weisbrod
Richard Haynes & Associates
JC Bailey III Bailey & Galyen
Frank L. Broyles Goins, Underkofler, Crawford & Langdon
Jim Walker Walker & Crawford
Leonard Gabbay Leonard B Gabbay PC
IL Eric Brunick Freed & Weiss
*Daniel Edelman Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin
Warren S. George Keis George LLP
MA J. Michael Conley Kenney & Conley
George Keches Keches Law Group
*Keith Halpern Keith Halpern Law
Jeffrey Denner Denner Pellegrino, L.L.P.,
NV Kyle Kring Kring & Chung
M. Lani Esteban-Trinidad Esteban-Trinidad Law, P.C
---------------------------------
Daniel Allred Parsons Behle & Latimer
Barry Levinson Law Offices of Barry Levinson
MD Jeffrey M. Bloom The Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Bloom
PA Robert Huber Huber & Palsir
William Ballaine Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C
Patrick McDonnell The Law Offices of McDonnell & Associates
*Timothy Conboy Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy, L.L.C
Marc Scaringi Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C.
Robert Pierce Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C
Page | 5
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Mortgage Litigation against Your Lender
With mortgage litigation, the homeowner will have attorneys on their side fighting for their rights in the US court
system. Banks will no longer have the power to make the decision as to what the homeowner will get.
The attorneys are using the leverage of the lawsuit to get results. Naturally, the attorneys follow the clients
instructions surrounding settlement of the litigation. In the event the client so chooses, they will attempt to settle
the suit for a principal reduction and rate reduction. If the bank will not settle, they will present this in front of a
jury and attempt to get the mortgage free and clear. Remember, banks are vilified in todays society. If bank
litigationmatters go to a jury trial, banks will be held accountable for the bad mortgages that were written and the
unresponsiveness they had in providing financial relief to the homeowners who were victimized.
Hartford Dunn, LLP has relationship with Law Firms that are taking the fight with us against the banks. We can
assess your case and see how many potential litigation cases you fit into based on your circumstances and profile.
We will continue to serve you on all cases you qualify for as a Plaintiff and this gives you more strength in numbers.
Law Firms With Active Cases of the Kind We Provide Backend Support
(Click on Defendant Company to view case detail)
Mitchell J. Stein & Associates
Los Angeles, CA
Defendant Company
Bank of America
Kramer & Kaslow
Oceanside, CA
Defendant Company
Citibank Corporation
Mitchell J. Stein & Associates
Los Angeles, CA
Defendant Company
GMAC Mortage
Kramer & Kaslow
Oceanside, CA
Defendant Company
Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Mitchell J. Stein & Associates
Los Angeles, CA
Defendant Company
JP Morgan Chase Bank
Kramer & Kaslow
Oceanside, CA
Defendant Company
One West Bank Group LLC
Page | 6
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Guldenschuh & Associates
Georgia
Defendant Company
Jon D. Pels, Esq., Lawrence J.
Anderson, Esq., Justin M. Reiner,
Esq. and Jennifer Schiffer, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland
Defendant Company
HSBC Mortgage Corp.
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
Washington DC
Defendant Company
CitiGroup, Inc. & CitiMortgage
Frydman, LLC
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Goldman Sachs, Hudson
Mezzanine Funding 2006-1 other
Hudson Funding entities, Peter
Ostrem, Darryl Herrick
Cohen & Malad, LLP Class Action
Attorneys
Indianapolis, Indiana
Defendant Company
Bank of America
Law Offices of Christie Arkovich
Tampa, Florida
Defendant Company
GMAC Mortgage
Susan Chana Lask
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Stephen J Baum, Esq, Stephen
J. Baum, PC, MERS, HSBC others
(see complaint)
E. Craig Smay, Esq. & John
Christian Barlow
Salt Lake City, Utah
Defendant Company
ReconTrust, MERS, BOA, BAC
Home Loan Servicing, HSBC, Wells
Fargo Bank, US Bank, Bank of New
York Melon, Keybank , Does 1-10
Law Offices of Heather Boone
McKeever
Lexington, Kentucky
Defendant Company
Forizs & Dogali, P.A.
Tampa, Florida
Defendant Company
Page | 6
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Guldenschuh & Associates
Georgia
Defendant Company
Jon D. Pels, Esq., Lawrence J.
Anderson, Esq., Justin M. Reiner,
Esq. and Jennifer Schiffer, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland
Defendant Company
HSBC Mortgage Corp.
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
Washington DC
Defendant Company
CitiGroup, Inc. & CitiMortgage
Frydman, LLC
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Goldman Sachs, Hudson
Mezzanine Funding 2006-1 other
Hudson Funding entities, Peter
Ostrem, Darryl Herrick
Cohen & Malad, LLP Class Action
Attorneys
Indianapolis, Indiana
Defendant Company
Bank of America
Law Offices of Christie Arkovich
Tampa, Florida
Defendant Company
GMAC Mortgage
Susan Chana Lask
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Stephen J Baum, Esq, Stephen
J. Baum, PC, MERS, HSBC others
(see complaint)
E. Craig Smay, Esq. & John
Christian Barlow
Salt Lake City, Utah
Defendant Company
ReconTrust, MERS, BOA, BAC
Home Loan Servicing, HSBC, Wells
Fargo Bank, US Bank, Bank of New
York Melon, Keybank , Does 1-10
Law Offices of Heather Boone
McKeever
Lexington, Kentucky
Defendant Company
Forizs & Dogali, P.A.
Tampa, Florida
Defendant Company
Page | 6
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Guldenschuh & Associates
Georgia
Defendant Company
Jon D. Pels, Esq., Lawrence J.
Anderson, Esq., Justin M. Reiner,
Esq. and Jennifer Schiffer, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland
Defendant Company
HSBC Mortgage Corp.
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
Washington DC
Defendant Company
CitiGroup, Inc. & CitiMortgage
Frydman, LLC
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Goldman Sachs, Hudson
Mezzanine Funding 2006-1 other
Hudson Funding entities, Peter
Ostrem, Darryl Herrick
Cohen & Malad, LLP Class Action
Attorneys
Indianapolis, Indiana
Defendant Company
Bank of America
Law Offices of Christie Arkovich
Tampa, Florida
Defendant Company
GMAC Mortgage
Susan Chana Lask
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Stephen J Baum, Esq, Stephen
J. Baum, PC, MERS, HSBC others
(see complaint)
E. Craig Smay, Esq. & John
Christian Barlow
Salt Lake City, Utah
Defendant Company
ReconTrust, MERS, BOA, BAC
Home Loan Servicing, HSBC, Wells
Fargo Bank, US Bank, Bank of New
York Melon, Keybank , Does 1-10
Law Offices of Heather Boone
McKeever
Lexington, Kentucky
Defendant Company
Forizs & Dogali, P.A.
Tampa, Florida
Defendant Company
Page | 7
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Mers, GMAC, Deutsche,
Nationstar, Aurora, BAC, Citi, US
Bank of America
Lanza & Smith, PLC
Irvine,, California
Defendant Company
The Ferraro Firm
Miami, Florida
Defendant Company
BAC home loans servicing,
Deutsche Bank National Trust, US
Bank National Association
Friscia & Associates
Newark, New Jersey
Defendant Company
Bank of America
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Ocwen Federal Bank, Ocwen
Financial
Lauren Paulson
Aloha, Oregon
Defendant Company
Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Company, Fairway America,
FHLF,LLC, Skylands Investment
Corporation
Ebanks & Sattler, llp.
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Chase Home Finance
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP
Washington, DC, Washington DC
Defendant Company
Aurora Loan Services
Bank of America
Kenneth Eric Trent
Oakland Park, Florida
Defendant Company
Law offices of David Stern, MERS
Figuerora vs Mers
Page | 7
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Mers, GMAC, Deutsche,
Nationstar, Aurora, BAC, Citi, US
Bank of America
Lanza & Smith, PLC
Irvine,, California
Defendant Company
The Ferraro Firm
Miami, Florida
Defendant Company
BAC home loans servicing,
Deutsche Bank National Trust, US
Bank National Association
Friscia & Associates
Newark, New Jersey
Defendant Company
Bank of America
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Ocwen Federal Bank, Ocwen
Financial
Lauren Paulson
Aloha, Oregon
Defendant Company
Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Company, Fairway America,
FHLF,LLC, Skylands Investment
Corporation
Ebanks & Sattler, llp.
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Chase Home Finance
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP
Washington, DC, Washington DC
Defendant Company
Aurora Loan Services
Bank of America
Kenneth Eric Trent
Oakland Park, Florida
Defendant Company
Law offices of David Stern, MERS
Figuerora vs Mers
Page | 7
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Mers, GMAC, Deutsche,
Nationstar, Aurora, BAC, Citi, US
Bank of America
Lanza & Smith, PLC
Irvine,, California
Defendant Company
The Ferraro Firm
Miami, Florida
Defendant Company
BAC home loans servicing,
Deutsche Bank National Trust, US
Bank National Association
Friscia & Associates
Newark, New Jersey
Defendant Company
Bank of America
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Ocwen Federal Bank, Ocwen
Financial
Lauren Paulson
Aloha, Oregon
Defendant Company
Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Company, Fairway America,
FHLF,LLC, Skylands Investment
Corporation
Ebanks & Sattler, llp.
New York, New York
Defendant Company
Chase Home Finance
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP
Washington, DC, Washington DC
Defendant Company
Aurora Loan Services
Bank of America
Kenneth Eric Trent
Oakland Park, Florida
Defendant Company
Law offices of David Stern, MERS
Figuerora vs Mers
Page | 8
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Beneficial Program for Clients
Fee is a fraction of the cost of traditional litigation
Real results compared to modifications
Actual lawsuit filed against lender
Major law firm experience, skill and resources without sacrificing client-centric focus
Responsive, effective and accessible 24-7 customer service
Skilled legal counsel in national and international real estate law and litigation
Support fromHartford Dunn, LLP, specialists in litigation against banks
Opportunity to participate in mass joinder litigation gives individuals greater legal
leverage over banks and lenders
Staff and litigators trained in cost-containment and attention to detail
Experienced, aggressive litigation specialists dedicated to positive results for your case
The Mortgage Litigation Process
Evaluation
Phase
Litigation
Phase
Discovery
Phase
Settlement /
Trial Phase
Page | 9
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Claims Against Lenders Include:
Malfeasance
3
rd
-Party Beneficiary Claims
Unfair Business Practices
MERS Violations
Statutory Violations
Phantom Investors and Beneficiaries
Fraudulent Foreclosure Practices
Identity Theft
Thousands of Americans have reclaimed their lives through mortgage litigation. Our network of attorneys
provides clients with all the information they need to make well informed decisions about their mortgage
situation. We are an industry leader in matching clients with qualified legal representation they need and deserve.
The banks have attorneys working hard on their sides, IT IS ABOUT TIME YOUR CLIENTS DO THE SAME.
Type of Clients Who Can Benefit:
Have been turned down for a loan mod.
Have multiple properties
Have too much debt
Dont have a hardship
Have received previous modifications
Are current on their mortgage
Facing foreclosure
Are in bankruptcy
Page | 10
"This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.
Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship, accordingly
only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information."
Getting Started in the Hartford Dunn, LLP Affiliate Network:
Request a Hartford Dunn, LLP Agreement
Fill out, sign and send back the agreement
We will open up an online CRM account
Start submitting your business today
We will handle everything else. It is that easy!
On behalf of all Plaintiff lawyers in the United States attempting to ameliorate the wrongdoing of banks and
financial institutions from 2004 through 2011, I sincerely hope the foregoing information is helpful to you and I
invite you to contact us or any of the foregoing law firms in the event you wish to learn more about the
Litigation Solution.
Sincerely,
HARTFORD DUNN, LLP
Michael Riley, Director Bank Compliance
1
2
3
4
























SPIVAK DECLARATION


EXHIBIT G
Galifornia Department of Real Estate
**
COA'SUMER ALERT**
FRAUD WARNING REGARDING LAWSUIT MARKETERS REQUESTING UPFRONT
FEES FOR SO.CALLED
"MASS
JOINDER" OR CLASS LITIGATION PROMISING
EXTRAORDINARY HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF
By Wayne S. Bell
Chief Counsel, California Department of Real Estate
HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF THROUGH LITIGATION (and
"Too
Good to Be True"
Claims Regarding lts Use to Avoid and/or Stop Foreclosure, Obtain Loan Principal
Reduction, and to Let You Have Your Home
"Free
and Clear" of Any Mortgage).
This alert is written to warn consumers about marketing companies, unlicensed entities,
lawyers, and so-called attorney-backed, attorney-affiliated, and lawyer referral entities
that offer and sell false hope and request the payment of upfront fees for so-called
"mass
joindef'
or class litigation that will supposedly result in extraordinary home mortgage
relief.
The California Department of Real Estate ("DRE" or
"Department") previously issued a
consumer alert and fraud warning on loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams in
California. That alert was followed by warnings and alerts regarding forensic loan audit
fraud, scams in connection with short sale transactions, false and misleading
designations and claims of special expertise, certifications and credentials in connection
with home loan relief services, and other real estate and home loan relief scams.
The Department continues to administratively prosecute those who engage in such fraud
and to work in collaboration with the California State Bar, the Federal Trade
Commission, and federal, State and local criminal law enforcement authorities to bring
such frauds to
justice.
On October 11,2009, Senate Bill 94 was signed into law in California, and it became
effective that day. lt prohibited any person, including real estate licensees and attorneys,
from charging, claiming, demanding, collecting or receiving an upfront fee from a
homeowner borrower in connection with a promise to modify the borroweds residential
loan or some other form of mortgage loan forbearance.
Senate Bill 94's prohibitions seem to have significantly impacted the rampant fraud that
was occurring and escalating with respect to the payment of upfront fees for loan
modification work.
Also, forensic loan auditors must now register with the California Department of Justice
and cannot accept payments in advance for their services under California law once a
Notice of Default has been recorded. There are certain exceptions for lawyers and real
estate brokers.
On January 31
,
2011
,
an important and broad advance fee ban issued by the Federal
Trade Commission became effective and outlaws providers of mortgage assistance relief
services from requesting or collecting advance fees from a homeowner.
Discussions about Senate Bill 94, the Federal advance fee ban, and the Consumer
Alerts of the DRE, are available on the DRE's website at www.dre.ca.oov.
Lawver Exemption from the Federal Advance Fee Ban --
The advance fee ban issued by the Federal Trade Commission includes a narrow and
conditional carve out for attorneys.
lf lawyers meet the following four conditions, they are generally exempt from the rule:
1. They are engaged in the practice of law, and mortgage assistance relief is part of
their practice.
2. They are licensed in the State where the consumer or the dwelling is located.
3. They are complying with State laws and regulations governing the "same type of
conduct the
[FTC]
rule requires".
4. They place any advance fees they collect in a client trust account and comply with
State laws and regulations covering such accounts. This requires that client funds
be kept separate from the lawyers' personal and/or business funds until such time
as the funds have been earned.
It is important to note that the exemption for lawyers discussed above does nof allow
lawyers to collect money upfront for loan modifications or loan forbearance services,
which advance fees are banned by the more restrictive Califomia Senate Bill 94.
But those who continue to prey on and victimize vulnerable homeowners have not given
up. They
just
change their tactics and modify their sales pitches to keep taking
advantage of those who are desperate to save their homes. And some of the frauds
seeking to rip off desperate homeowners are trying to use the lawyer exemption above to collect
advance fees for mortgage assistance relief litigation.
This alert and warninq is issued to call to vour attention the often overblown and
exaoqerated
"sales
pitch(es)"
reqardinq the supposed value of
questionable
"Mass Joinder" or Class Action Litiqation.
Whether they call themselves Foreclosure Defense Experts, Mortgage Loan Litigators,
Living Free and Clear experts, or some other official, important or impressive sounding
title(s), individuals and companies are marketing their services in the State of California
and on the Internet. Thev are makinq a wide varietv of claims and sales
pitches.
and offerinq impressive soundino leqal and litiqation services. with
quite
extraordinarv remedies
promised.
with the
qoal
of takinq and
qettinq
some of vour
monev.
ll.
While there are lawyers and law firms which are legitimate and qualified to handle
complex class action or
joinder
litigation, you must be cautious and BEWARE. And
certainly check out the lawyers on the State Bar website and via other means, as
discussed below in Section lll.
QUESTIONABLE AND/OR FALSE CLAIMS OF THE SO.CALLED MORTGAGE LOAN
DEFENSE OR "MASS JOINDER" AND CLASS LITIGATORS.
A. What are the Claims/Sales Pitches?
They are many and varied, and include:
1. You can
join
in a mass
joinder
or class action lawsuit already filed against your
lender and stay in your home. You can stop paying your lender.
2. The mortgage loans can be stripped entirely from your home.
3. Your payment obligation and foreclosure against your home can be stopped when
the lawsuit is filed.
4. The litigation will take the power away from your lender.
5. A
jury
will side with you and against your lender.
6. The lawsuit will give you the leverage you need to stay in your home.
7. The lawsuit may give you the right to rescind your home loan, or to reduce your
principal.
The lawsuit will help you modify your home loan. lt will give you a step up in the
loan modification process.
The litigation will be performed through
"powerful"
litigation attorney
representation.
10. Litigation attorneys are
"tuming
the tables on lenders and getting cash settlements
for homeowners".
ln one lnternet advertisement, the marketing materials say,
"the
damages sought in your
behalf are nothing less than a full lien strip or in othenryords
[sic]
a free and clear house if
the bank can't produce the documents they own the note on your home. Or at the very
least, damages could be awarded that would reduce the principal balance of the note on
your home to 80% of market value, and give you a 2% interest rate for the life of the
loan".
B. Discussion.
Please don't be fooled by slick come-ons by scammers who
just
want your money. Some
of the claims above might be true in a particular case, based on the facts and evidence
presented before a Court or a
jury,
or have a ring or hint of truth, but you must carefully
examine and analyze each and every one of them to determine if filing a lawsuit against
your lender or
joining
a class or mass
joinder
lawsuit will have any value for you and your
situation. Be particularly skeptical of all such claims, since agreeing to participate in
8
9.
ilt.
such litigation may require you to pay for legal or other services, often before any legal
work is performed (e.9., a significant upfront retainer fee is required).
The reality is that litigation is time-consuming (with formal discovery such as
depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions,
motions, and the like), expensive, and usually vigorously defended. There can be
no guarantees or assurances with respect to the outcome of a lawsuit.
Even if a lender or loan owner defendant were to lose at trial, it can appeal, and the
entire process can take years. Also, there is no statistical or other competent data
that supports the claims that a mass
joinder
and class action lawsuit, even if
performed by a licensed, legitimate and trained lawyer(s), will provide the
remedies that the marketers promise.
There are two other important points to be made here:
First, even assuming that the lawyers can identify fraud or other legal violations
performed by your lender in the loan origination process, your loan may be owned by an
investor
-
that is, someone other than your lender. The investor will most assuredly
argue that your claims against your originating lender do not apply against the investor
(the purchaser of your loan). And even if your lender still owns the loan, they are not
legally required, absent a court
judgment
or order, to modify your loan or to halt the
foreclosure process if you are behind in your payments. lf they happen to lose the
lawsuit, they can appeal, as noted above. Also, the violations discovered may be minor
or inconsequential, which will not provide for any helpful remedies.
Second, and very importantly, loan modifications and other types of foreclosure relief are
simply not possible for every homeowner, and the
"success
rate" is currently very low in
California. This is where the lawsuit marketing scammers come in and try to convince
you that they offer you "a
leg up". They falsely claim or suggest that they can guarantee
to stop a foreclosure in its tracks, leave you with a home
"free
and cleaf' of any
mortgage loan(s), make lofty sounding but hollow promises, exaggerate or make bold
statements regarding their litigation successes, charge you for a retainer, and leave you
with less money.
THE KEY HERE IS FOR YOU TO BE ON GUARD AND CHECK THE LAWYERS OUT
(Know Who You Are or May Be Dealing With) - Do Your Own Homework (Avoid
The Traps Set by the Litigation Marketing Frauds).
Before entering into an attorney-client relationship, or paying for
"legal"
or litigation
services, ascertain the name of the lawyer or lawyers who will be providing the services.
Then check them out on the State Bar's website, at www.calbar.ca.qov. Make certain
that they are licensed by the State Bar of California. lf they are licensed, see if they have
been disciplined.
4
tv.
Check them out through the Better Business Bureau to see if the Bureau has received
any complaints about the lawyer, law firm or marketing firm offering the services (and
remember that only lawyers can provide legal services). And please understand that this
is
just
another resource for you to check, as the litigation services provider might be so
new that the Better Business Bureau may have little or nothing on them (or something
positive because of insufficient public input).
Check them out through a Google or related search on the lnternet. You may be
amazed at what you can and will find out doing such a search. Often consumers
who have been scammed will post their experiences, insights, and warnings long
before any criminal, civil or administrative action has been brought against the
scammers.
Also, ask them lots of specific, detailed questions about their litigation experience, clients
and successful results. For example, you should ask them how many mortgage-related
joinder
or class lawsuits they have filed and handled through settlement or trial. Ask
them for pleadings they have filed and news stories about their so-called successes. Ask
them for a list of current and past "satisfied"
clients. lf they provide you with a list, call
those people and ask those former clients if they would use the lawyer or law firm again.
Ask the lawyers if they are class action or
joinder
litigation specialists and ask them what
specialist qualifications they have. Then ask what they will actually do for you (what
specific services they will be providing and for what fees and costs). Get that in writing,
and take the time to fully understand what the attorney-client contract says and what the
end result will be before proceeding with the services. Remember to always ask for and
demand copies of all documents that you sign.
CONCLUSION
Mortgage rescue frauds are extremely good at selling false hope to consumers in trouble
with regard to home loans. The scammers continue to adapt and to modify their
schemes as soon as their last ones became ineffective. Promises of successes through
mass
joinder
or class litigation are now being marketed.
Please be careful, do your own diligence to protect yourself, and be highly suspect if
anyone asks you for money up front before doing any service on your behalf. Most
importantly, DON'T LET FRAUDS TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY.
######tt###


1
MALONEY DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MALONEY DECLARATION
I, Ted Maloney, declare that:
1. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. If called to testify, I could and
would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
California. I am a lawyer with SML LLP (“SML”), the senior partner of which, Kenin M.
Spivak (“Spivak”) is co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in the Ronald Action.
1

3. Although I have only recently become a counsel of record, I have been one of the
lawyers for Plaintiffs in the Ronald Action for nearly 10 months. During that time, I have
worked closely with Spivak (“Spivak”) and at times, also with Mitchell J. Stein (“Stein”) and to
a lesser degree, also with Erikson Davis (“Davis”), Bridget Jones (“Jones”) and Christopher
Tomaszewski (“Tomaszewski”).
4. Effective as of the beginning of this year, I joined SML, a law firm established by
Spivak. My name was not on the pleadings in the Ronald action until very recently because my
prior firm consented to my assisting, but asked that I keep my name off the pleadings.
5. After I had been working primarily with Spivak regarding the Ronald case for
several months, late last year, Stein asked me to assist with respect to preparing discovery and
certain other matters. On a part-time basis over an approximately 45-day period, I performed
those services primarily in an office in the same suite as Stein and certain other lawyers I was
informed had been retained by Kramer.
6. I have known Michael S. Riley (“Riley”) for approximately 12 years. I
introduced him to Stein late last year while I was working with Stein. Over the last several
months, I have met Riley on numerous occasions in Los Angeles. During social events, Riley
has explained that he is in Los Angeles for various business endeavors, including with Stein.
7. Since learning of the finalization of my plans to join SML in December 2011,

1
In submitting this declaration, the declarant does not intend to waive and does not waive any
privileges, including, without limitation, work product protection..


1
JONES DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JONES DECLARATION
I, Bridget Jones, declare that:
1. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. If called to testify, I could and
would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
California. I am a partner in Apex Legal Group PC (“Apex”). I have been a partner in Apex and
Apex has been a counsel of record in the Ronald action since the filing of the lawsuit on March
12, 2009.
1

3. As the originating counsel for a majority of the plaintiffs, Apex designates (and
has the right to withdraw) “lead counsel” positions. At first, Apex designated Stein. Then, at
Stein’s recommendation and based on Apex’s independent investigation of Spivak, Apex agreed
to split the lead counsel position between Stein and Spivak because it would serve the best
interests of our clients. Events since that time and more than justified our confidence in Spivak,
though events have raised grave doubts about Stein’s transparency and collegiality.
4. Spivak had requested the legal team’s support with respect to certain fact matters
necessary to prepare the Fourth Amended Complaint. Spivak and I worked closely to develop the
necessary information. Stein at first ignored the process, then told us he had taken care of what
was needed and then purported to instruct Apex not to contact clients. Stein never provided the
information he said he had.
5. Thereafter, Stein threatened to sue Apex. For a time, he would not communicate
with me. Among other things, Stein insisted that Apex was responsible for Stein’s failure to
perform that which he had told the team he had already achieved.
6. It has been my observation that Spivak performed enormous amounts of work and
was also assiduous in consulting with the other co-counsel regarding his contributions and
output. That is an important attribute in a team leader, i.e., a lead counsel.

1
In submitting this declaration, the declarant does not intend to waive and does not waive any
privileges, including, without limitation, work product protection.


2
JONES DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. By contrast, on February 9, 2011, without prior consultation with me – and to the
best of my knowledge without prior consultation with my partner in Apex, Christopher
Tomaszewski, or Spivak - Stein and Davis sent a notice to BofA counsel for a proposed ex parte
regarding the addition of 394 plaintiffs to the Ronald action. I have no idea as to the provenance
of these clients and do not consent to their addition to the case.
8. Until February 2011, to the best of my recollection, each member of the legal
team had been accorded the opportunity by the other members of the legal team to review,
comment on and approve all motions and other court filings. I was not given any opportunity to
review or approve: (1) the application for a temporary restraining order filed by plaintiffs on or
about February 28, 2011, 2011; (2) pro hac vice applications apparently filed by Stein, Davis and
Michael S. Riley (“Riley”) with the Court of Appeals regarding Riley on or about March 14,
2011; (3) a “Preliminary Opposition (and Memorandum) in Response to Defendants’ Petition
and Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Other Appropriate Relief,” apparently filed by Stein, Davis
and Riley on or about March 15, 2011; or (4) a petition for a writ filed on or about March 15,
2011 by Stein, Davis and Riley regarding the Court’s decision pertaining to the March 1 TRO
application.
9. Neither Apex nor I were sent any drafts or the final version of the foregoing
filings. Further, neither Apex nor I were formally served with any of the foregoing filings,
except that I did receive by email a copy of one of the Riley applications. We obtained copies of
the Court of Appeals filings from SML after Stein again refused to provide copies by email on
March 21, 2011. I noticed that Spivak was not on the distribution list for that application and so
I forwarded it to him. We obtained copies of the Court of Appeals filings only after SML
engaged someone to go to court to obtain the documents.
10. I expected all key filings to be reviewed and directed by Spivak. Spivak’s
exclusion was diametrically contrary to our wishes and the best interests of our clients, in that it
deprived them of Spivak’s perspective and talents.
11. None of Stein, Davis or Riley consulted with me regarding adding Riley to the
Ronald legal team or Riley’s application for admission pro hac vice. I have never met Riley, nor
3
JONES DECLARA nON
1 had any interaction with him of any nature. To the best of my knowledge he has never rendered
2 any services with respect to the action. I do not consent to his addition to the team.
12. Neither Stein nor Davis have ever disclosed to me that Davis is employed by Phil
4 Kramer or a Kramer law firm, that Stein and Davis worked near each other in the same office
5 building in Calabasas or that Davis renders considerable legal services for Stein.
6
13. I recently learned from prospective clients that Stein has apparently charged
7 retainers for inclusion in the case. No such change in business model was discussed with
8 me or approved by me. Assuming, however, that the model is being implemented lawfully,
9 Apex is entitled to participate in such revenue as co-counsel.
10
14. The legal team has fractured into a group that includes Apex, SML and most of
11
the clients on one side and a group that includes Stein and Davis on the other. I do not believe
the breaches in agreement, decorum or professional conduct are reparable. I do not see how the
legal team can best represent our clients in these circumstances. I therefore withdraw my
consent that Stein be a lead counsel in this action and further withdraw consent that Stein
12
13
14
15
continue to represent my clients.
16
15. I have received phone calls from clients who have expressed concern about the
17
information on the internet about Stein, as detailed in certain consumer alert blogs, and have
18
questioned whether he is acting in the best interests of the clients. This concern hampers our
ability to work with clients. Not having all information 'pertinent to allegations of a relationship
between Kramer and Stein damages our credibility and that, in turns, impairs the team's ability
19
20
21
to represent our clients.
22
16. I believe that Apex and SML can properly represent the interests of our clients
23
and can do so within the bounds of the professional standards that govern lawyers in California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the forego-ingis true and correct. Executed on March
28, 2011, at Sacramento, California.
24
25
26
27
~~
Bridget Jones 28
3
10
11
T2
t_3
I4
'tq
16
L7
18
19
2A
2T
22
23
24
25
26
27
2A
Proof of Service
of
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
r am employed in the County of Los Angeles, Stace of California. I am over Lhe
age of eighteen
(18) years and not a party to the within acti-on. My business address
is: 450 Nort.h Roxbury Drj.ve, Seventh Floor, Beverly Hi1ls, CA 90210.
On March 28, 2017. I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF
MOTTON Ai{D MOTION TO RSMOVE MIrCI{EL J. STEIN AS CO-LEA-D COITNSEL FOR PLAI}flrIFFS AND AS
COI'NSEL FOR SPECIFIED PI,AINTIFFS, TO COMPEI. STEIN TO TI'RN OVER ENGANGEMENT AGREEME}ITS
AND FOR AN ACCOUNrING;Points and Authoritiesr Declarations of Christopher Tomaszewski,
Kenin M, Spivak, Ted MaLoney, Bridget ,Jones and Exhibits on Lhese parties in this
act ion .
Mitchell J. Stej-n, Esq.
MITCHEI,I, .]. STEIN & ASSOCIATES
2950 Buskirk Avenue, Ste, 300
walnut Creek, CA 94597
Erikson M. Dawis, Esq.
IJAW OFFTCES OF ERIKSON M. DAVIS
11574 Iowa Avenue, Suite 104
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Robert E. Boone fII
Keith D. Klein
Nafiz Cekirge
BRYAN CAVE I,I,P
1.20 Broadway, suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2385
( X )
(BY
MAIL) I a.n
rreadily
faniliarn with this firm's practice of colleition and
processing correspondence by mailing. under that practice it would be
deposited with U.s. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid
at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary cgurEe of business. I €rm aware lhat
on motion of t,he party served, service is presr:ned invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
deposit for rnaiLing in affidavit.
(BY
PERSONAL DELIVERY) f caused such envelope to be deliwered by hand to the
offices of the addressee.
(BY FACSIMILE) I caused such docu.urent to be senE via facsimile to;
NameofAttorney- (
) -
(vIA
EMAIL) I caused such docunent to be sent via email as follows:
Mit,chell if. Stein, Esg, private,oceibod@gmail.com
Erickson M. Davj-s, Eaq. eri-kdavis@att. net
Robert E. Boone, fII, Esq. reboone@bryancave.com
Keith K1ein, Esq. keith.klein@bryancave.com
Nafiz Cekirge, Esq, nafiz.cekirge@bryancave.com
(STATE)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
California t.hat the above is true and correct.
(x)
(x)
I
o
10
11
L2
13
L4
L5
l5
t1
18
19
20
2I
22
a1
24
tq
)R
27
Proof of Service
(FEDERAI,) I decl-are
at v/hose direction
that. I am employed in the offi-ces of
the service was made.
a member of this court
Executed this 28th day March,20lL, in Hi1Is, Cali-f ornia
Beverly

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) )

AND BRIDGET JONES; EXHIBITS Action Filed: March 12, 2009 Date: Time: Department: 307 Discovery Cut-Off: Not Set Trial Date: Not Set

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 3, 2011, at 9:00 A.M. in Department 307 of the above referenced court located at 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, CA. 90005 Plaintiffs, through their counsel, SML LLP, Apex Legal Group P.C., Kenin M. Spivak, Christopher Tomaszewski, Bridget Jones and Ted Maloney (collectively, “Moving Parties”) will move this Court for an Order seeking the following relief (the “Requested Relief”): (a) To relieve attorney Mitchell J. Stein (“Stein”) of his position as co-lead counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs in this litigation; (b) To relieve Stein and Erikson S. Davis (“Davis”) from rendering any further legal services for clients who have retained or retain any or all of Jones, Tomaszewski, Apex Legal Group P.C. (“Apex”), Spivak, Spivak Law Group, or SML LLP (“SML”), except those plaintiffs who file and do not revoke a written objection thereto within thirty (30) days after the entry of an order for the Requested Relief; (c) To require Stein and Davis to produce to Moving Parties copies of: (1) all correspondence with the clients for whom Stein is relieved from providing services, (2) all correspondence with Defendants as to which Moving Parties were not copied, (3) all discovery propounded on Defendants or received from Defendants, (4) transcripts in hard copy and disc form for all individuals who have been deposed by Stein or Davis in this action, and (5) all other information necessary or appropriate for a smooth transition, all within sixty (60) days after the entry of an order for the Requested Relief; (d) To require Stein and Davis to deliver to Moving Parties accountings of their time in

2 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the matter for use in any lodestar computations made at the time the lawyers in this matter become entitled to any fees, all within sixty (60) days after an entry of an order for the Requested Relief; (e) To require Stein and Davis to produce to Moving Parties or a third party designated by this Court copies of all engagement agreements ever existing, whether proposed, sent, received, signed or unsigned and all modifications, amendments, supplements and replacements with respect thereto, whether proposed, sent, received, signed or unsigned, by which either of them will or might render services and/or will or might directly or indirectly receive financial benefits pertaining to all or any: (1) named plaintiffs in this action, other than those plaintiffs who were disclosed and named on the initial Complaint, First Amended Complaint or Second Amended Complaint, (2) potential plaintiffs in this action and/or (3) potential plaintiffs in any other action against all or any of the defendants in this action, within ten (10) days after entry of an order for the Requested Relief; (f) To require Stein and Davis to produce to Moving Parties copies of all literature or other materials, except only personalized discussions in which Stein or Davis provide specific legal advice (whether delivered electronically, by mail, or otherwise) used in or in connection with the solicitation of the proposed plaintiffs set forth in the ex parte notice sent by Davis on February 9, 2011 and any other plaintiffs proposed to be added by amendment to this action during 2011; and (g) To require Stein and Davis to produce to Moving Parties an accounting of any and all financial benefits received or accrued directly or indirectly by either of them and/or any of the family members, partners, associates, nominees, representatives or designees of either or both of them, including, without limitation, benefits by way of the services of lawyers, paralegals, secretaries and other support services, offices, equipment and otherwise from, on behalf of, or appertaining to: (1) named plaintiffs in this action, (2) potential plaintiffs in this action and (3) potential plaintiffs in any other action against all or any of the defendants in this action, all within sixty (60)

3 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. STEIN

the attached declarations of Kenin M. 1 8 9 10 1t 12 13 1. the Court's record in this case and such fuither evidence as may be presented to the Court regarding this Motion.1 days after the entry of an order for the Requested Relief.placing at 4 tr jeopardy the team's representation of J plaintiffs. Proc. 2 The Requested Relief is sought pursuant to Code Civ.4 Dated: March 28. 5 Plaintiffs' Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion. Spivak. STEIN . the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.A 25 26 21 28 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. Ted Maloney.2011 SML LLp LLP 15 L6 L1 Attorneys for Moving Parties 18 L9 20 2L 22 aa . Bridget Jones and Christopher Tomaszewski and exhibits attached thereto. g 128(a) and g 187 and the 3 Court's inherent authority and is necessary because Stein and Davis have abrogated their working relationships with the legal team.

.............................................. 12  E............................ 13  F.. STEIN ..................................... 12  D...................................  III....... is no longer functioning efficiently which will adversely affect the team’s ability to effectively represent Plaintiffs ..................................................  II................... .............................................................. 2  Procedural History.......................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... 15  21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J.....  INTRODUCTION...............................................  B........................  Moving Parties are entitled to an order compelling Stein to turn over all engagement letters and to an accounting........ 13  IV........................  This Court has the power............................... saving future judicial resources and protecting Plaintiffs......... but it will avoid known future pitfalls.................. 8  B...................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS I............. 1  FACTS ............... 2  The Legal Team Ruptures...................  A................................................................................  Granting relief in a timely manner will not only facilitate the efficient administration of justice......... 10  C...  CONCLUSION ............................  The legal team...................................................... 8  A...................................................... to issue an appropriate order to facilitate the proper and efficient administration of this case .............................. and indeed the obligation.......  Moving Parties are the originating lawyers for a majority of the Ronald clients and may be the originating or co-counsel for nearly all of the Ronald clients ........... as originally structured...................................  The legal team has grown and Stein is not required as co-lead counsel or as a counsel with respect to clients who do not object to his discharge............ 3  ARGUMENT ...........................................

.......... App......... 11 CRC Rule 8........... 15 10 Code Civ.............. STEIN .... 9 Standard 3.............. 8 11 Code Civ...... Sup.............................40(a) ... v........ 55 Cal...................1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases  Asbestos Claims Facility................... Heimann & Bersntein LLP....... Ct.......... 95 Cal................................... Superior Court. 9 Lu v......25(a)................. 4th 1264 (1997) ........10(a) ............................................................. Rule 1-400 ... 4th 154 (2002) ............... 8 Section 4 ... Proc................. Proc........ 10 CRPC.... Proc............. Berry & Berry.... §187 .................................. 9 Rule 3...............................18 .................................. 11 Rule 3...... 9....... Lieff............................... App........ 219 Cal App................. 11 CRPC Rule 3-700( C )(3) ................. 15 Statutes  9 Code Civ... § 187 ..... 10 ii MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J.................... §128(a) .............401 . Cabraser.....400 ............... 9..... 9..... 10 Ferguson v....................... et al..1 .................... 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rules  CRC Rule 8... 16 Cal..................... 10 Standard 2..... 2d 260.............. 13 Hays v..................... 3d 9 (1990) ........... 264 (1940) ....... 9 Rule 9....................

The Motion pertains to a rupture of the relationship between. STEIN . 2011 by Davis.1 SML and Apex (collectively. the Moving Parties do not intend to waive and do not waive any privileges. INTRODUCTION This Motion is brought on behalf of four of the six lawyers in this action. Stein (“Stein”) of Mitchell J. Spivak is co-lead counsel in charge of pleadings and Stein is co-lead counsel in charge of discovery. without giving Moving Parties the opportunity for prior review. 2010 hearing by the Court.” 4 3 1 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. without limitation. As discussed during the December 17. However. annexed hereto. who collectively originated a majority of the plaintiffs: Kenin M. work product protection. (“Apex”). the “Moving Parties”). Spivak and Stein. Bridget Jones (“Jones”) and Christopher Tomaszewski (“Tomaszewski”). relieve Stein and Davis from rendering services for the Moving Parties’ clients and obtain copies of applicable engagement agreements and an accounting. Stein & Associates.2 The Moving Parties seek to relieve Stein as co-lead counsel. 24 25 26 27 28 By submitting this Motion. See Spivak and Maloney declarations. Stein is referred to as “lead counsel. until February. Davis is also associated with the law firm of Kramer & Kaslow (or an affiliate thereof) and with Mitchell J. Stein & Associates and Erikson M. the Moving Parties. on the one hand. In a status report filed on March 25. and on the other. of Apex Legal Group P. Spivak (“Spivak”) and Ted Maloney (“Maloney”). all 23 2 Tomaszewski and Jones also recently became of counsel to SML. to the Moving Parties’ knowledge. Davis (“Davis”) of the Law Office of Erikson Davis.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. 2011. Stein’s responsibilities also include procedural matters and liaising with Stein-Spivak clients.4 Spivak’s responsibilities also include directing research. including. currently of SML LLP (“SML”). attached declarations and supporting documents. Mitchell J.C.3 This rupture has impeded the legal team’s ability to give 100% to our clients and will seriously erode the team’s ability to do so for the future. Bank of America (“BofA”) counsel Keith Klein.

As a result. The plaintiffs were clients of Jones and Tomaszewski (partners in Apex) and Stein. or that he has not contributed to this case. Procedural History On March 12. TD ¶¶ 3-6. 2011 Except as described in this Motion and the annexed declarations: the co-counsel generally have not been involved in each other’s interaction with clients and potential clients. Stein separately recruited Davis at approximately the same time. the caption of all court filings after that time and until March 15. The Moving Parties do not by this Motion suggest that Stein is not a talented lawyer or advocate. 5 2 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 counsel contributed to substantially all aspects of the case. this Motion is focused on a lack of civility. 2009. Accordingly. through the Second Amended Complaint. 24. Apex and Stein agreed to work together.5 See annexed Spivak declaration (“SD”) at ¶¶ 5-7. II. 8. consulted on and approved of each other’s material contributions to the case and jointly developed and executed strategy. co-counsel can no longer effectively act together on behalf of the plaintiffs named in the Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) or plaintiffs who might be added to the action. Tomaszewski declaration (“TD”) at ¶¶ 22. as reflected in the caption of the complaint. 17 individuals filed a complaint in this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. SD ¶ 5 and JD ¶ 3. While Moving Parties allege Stein is to blame for the ruptures. asked Spivak to become co-lead counsel responsible for pleadings and research. Maloney declaration (“MD”) at ¶ 3 and Jones declaration (“JD”) at ¶¶ 6. TD ¶ 2. with the approval of Apex. in or about May 2010. thereby materially impairing the ability of counsel to fully represent the interests of the plaintiffs in this action as it proceeds. STEIN . Whatever the causes. Stein. the fact of the rupture is beyond dispute. Rather. Thereafter. Apex originated 16 of the 17 plaintiffs. As more fully explained in the TD. the caption remained the same and Apex continued to originate most clients. FACTS A. Stein might assert that Moving Parties are to blame. transparency and coordination with co-counsel that has reached a point where it is impracticable for the legal team to function as a team.

Spivak. 2010. named 249 plaintiffs. the Court certified for interlocutory review a writ by BofA with respect to the Court’s overruling of the TAC’s first cause of action. On June 14. 2011. assisted primarily by Maloney. Stein and Tomaszewski. 2010. the plaintiffs are jointly represented by Davis. Of the 249 named plaintiffs in the TAC. unless the action was successful. approximately 108 clients. with Spivak and Stein as co-lead counsel. Davis one client and the Stein-Spivak collaboration. BofA filed a petition for a writ (the “BofA Petition”) on or about March 11. Moving Parties estimate that Apex originated 128 clients. TD ¶ 7. Jones. Davis and Spivak. filed on July 7. 3 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. but as with all other court filings to that time. TD ¶ 11. JD ¶ 3. to the Moving Parties’ knowledge. this Court ordered the plaintiffs to file the TAC. Tomaszewski. Apex also qualified clients and took responsibility for delivering a similar engagement agreement also prepared by Spivak to its clients and for executing and processing those agreements. B.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 consisted of Jones. JD ¶ 8. STEIN . 2011. MD ¶ 3. each with separate. Spivak directed the successful effort to remand the action and the Plaintiffs’ ability through the TAC and opposition to BofA’s demurrer. Stein. Spivak and Stein. Regardless of responsibilities. At that time. At the beginning of 2011. The TAC. Stein took responsibility for delivering a Stein-Spivak engagement agreement prepared by Spivak to their prospective clients and for executing and processing the agreements. to finally place the case at issue on January 11. Maloney. Spivak was the principal drafter. Separately. Neither agreement required clients to pay a retainer or to reimburse costs. until February 2011. Maloney then was added to the caption as an SML attorney. assisted by their family members worked collaboratively to qualify plaintiffs for the TAC based on criteria established by Stein and on the understanding that the resulting clients would be their joint clients. 10 clients. As described at TD ¶¶ 12-13. the entire team contributed to the TAC and approved of it. Stein. all counsel contributed to court filings and approved of those filings and other key aspects of the litigation. Spivak formed SML. SD ¶ 24. TD ¶ 9. MD ¶ 4. SD ¶ 43. Spivak. The Legal Team Ruptures By oral agreement and practice of the legal team. two clients. but somewhat overlapping responsibilities.

However. their relationship also frayed. Spivak observed Internet postings regarding Stein. 6 SD ¶ 14. By year’s end. Kramer & Kaslow and K2 that included inaccurate and inappropriate assertions. Court hearing in which BofA expressed concerns regarding Internet postings and mailings purportedly involving Kramer. attorney Phillip Kramer (“Kramer”). Spivak and Stein were entitled to share in any retainers in accordance with their understandings. Spivak expressed concerns to Stein and made clear. 17. JD ¶ 13. SD ¶¶ 45-49. that: (1) no client could become a client in this action if there was uncertainty about that client’s provenance. each of Spivak and Tomaszewski separately expressed their concerns to Stein. The engagement letters prepared by Spivak did not include a retainer. 2010. Stein emailed Spivak. Stein then sent emails to third parties that vilified Maloney and revealed information Maloney disclosed to Stein in contemplation of Stein rendering legal services for Maloney. 6 4 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. the Moving Parties have been advised that Stein modified the form to include a retainer. and (3) Spivak needed copies of all Stein-Spivak retainer agreements and an accounting of any income thereunder. SD ¶¶ 15. He insisted that all Stein-Spivak clients were his clients alone and asserted that providing copies of the agreements or an accounting would violate attorney-client privilege. communications between Stein and Spivak deteriorated further. Thereafter. Stein at various times refused to communicate with one or more of Jones.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 From late 2010. (2) as to clients with an appropriate provenance. Late last year. Stein denied any wrongdoing and also declined Spivak’s requests. Tomaszewski and Spivak and at various times threatened that he or “clients” would commence legal action against the Moving Parties are not aware of a named plaintiff in this action who has paid a retainer. 2011. Thereafter. MD ¶ 7 SD ¶ 9. TD ¶ 31. STEIN . among other things. On December 21. Following the February 3. Stein and K2. Stein also advised Spivak that Spivak’s positions could violate Spivak’s fiduciary duties and subject him to liability. after provision for a reserve for litigation costs. Maloney rendered legal services for Stein and Kramer with respect to this case and other mass joinder actions.

17. 11. JD ¶¶ 8-9. Stein has repeatedly implied that he will cause third parties with whom he has a relationship to commence legal actions against one or more of the Moving Parties. also repeatedly complained that he is the only person doing any work. Until February 2011. Mr. Regarding the 4AC. JD ¶ 5. JD ¶ 5. SD ¶¶ 21. 7 TD ¶¶ 20-21. 30. TD ¶ 21. each member of the legal team had been accorded the opportunity by the other members of the team to review. promised to prepare and deliver agreements and stated that it was “unlikely” he would sign agreements. 2011. SD ¶¶ 8. 8 7 5 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. TD ¶¶ 29. Riley does not appear to have served in such capacity.” See Exhibit G to Spivak declaration Stein repeatedly refers to Riley as the former head of the Florida antifraud division. 17. Stein never delivered the product he said had been completed. Stein also has alternatively refused to sign written agreements with co-counsel. Stein next asserted that Spivak and/or Apex were responsible for the tasks Stein did not perform and threatened legal actions for their alleged failures. Stein advised the Court that he intended to move for the admission of Michael S. comment on and approve all important motions and The broader situation of improper and inaccurate client solicitations involving mortgage litigation prompted the California Department of Real Estate to issue a “Consumer Alert” entitled “Fraud Warning Regarding Lawsuit Marketers Requesting Upfront Fees for So-Called ‘Mass Joinder’ or Class Litigation Promising Extraordinary Home Mortgage Relief. TD ¶ 20. 30-31. TD ¶ 19. 23. During a hearing on March 9. SD ¶ 29. He then went so far as to “instruct” Apex not to communicate with clients they or Spivak had originated because he had taken care of the matter. 15. 15. without naming him. Riley (“Riley”) to appear pro hac vice. STEIN . Over the last few months. even as he apparently delegated to others the work he alleged he was staying up all night to do and has excluded the team.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 foregoing and Maloney. Stein advised his co-counsel that he or his office had completed certain required tasks.8 At no time did Stein consult with Moving Parties regarding Riley’s involvement in this action. MD ¶¶ 8-9. SD ¶ 20. He has. 52. See SD ¶ 22 and Exhibit B to SD. SD ¶¶ 20. SD ¶¶ 8. of late. TD ¶ 14.

Instead of complying with the legal team’s general agreement and practice and contrary to Stein’s specific assurances. On February 28. Stein never responded and later told Tomaszewski in a phone conversation that he had no recollection of receiving any emails or texts from Spivak regarding the TRO Petition. JD ¶¶ 8. SD ¶ 19. SD ¶ 28. undertook additional research and emailed to the team that research.. the “TRO Petition”) for Spivak’s review. On February 9. a material filing was made without consultation with any of the Moving Parties when Stein and Davis filed an application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO Application”) with respect to imminent foreclosures against certain Apex-originated clients. TD ¶ 25. Following two hearings.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 other court filings. 2011). After the second hearing. 2011. JD ¶ 8. Without consultation with Moving Parties: (1) on March 14. SD ¶¶ 25-26. SD ¶¶ 27-28. revisions and approval. Stein had informed Spivak that Davis was adapting a preliminary injunction motion written by Spivak and assured Spivak that he would have ample time to review and vet the draft TRO Application. 2011. SD ¶¶ 27-28.” When Spivak did not receive the draft. for the first time. Davis filed the TRO Application without review by Spivak or the other Moving Parties of any draft or supporting research. He reviewed the research undertaken by Stein’s office for the TRO Application. 2011) or Friday morning (March 11. TD ¶ 23. 2011. Stein advised Spivak that he would send the draft TRO Petition to Spivak by Thursday evening (March 10. MD ¶ 8. the Court denied the TRO Application and certified the decision for interlocutory review. Following a hearing in this Court on the Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions against Stein. Stein and Davis filed 6 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. an outline of issues to be researched for the TRO Petition and potential bases for the writ. 9. JD ¶ 7. oversight of additional research. TD ¶¶ 25-26. Thereafter. TD ¶ 26. Spivak began work on the TRO Petition. Stein and Spivak agreed that Stein would write the first draft of a petition (herein. without prior consultation with Moving Parties. he repeatedly emailed and texted Stein inquiring as to the status of the draft. at “the latest. Stein and Davis sent a notice to BofA counsel for a proposed ex parte motion regarding the addition of 394 plaintiffs to the Ronald action. STEIN .

2011. Despite repeated requests to Stein and Davis. TD ¶¶ 25-29. 9 TD ¶ 30. March 27. MD ¶¶ 8-9. 2011. Stein. According to the White Paper. JD ¶¶ 8-9. neither of them emailed (or otherwise provided) any of the substantive Court of Appeals filings to Moving Parties. 2011 accessed on February 26. Stein added Riley. TD ¶ 32. Further. According to a “White Paper” dated January 15. STEIN . In their place (apparently before his pro hac application had been approved). 10 9 7 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. JD ¶ 8. TD ¶ 25. SD ¶¶ 18. Stein. SD ¶ 30. SD ¶¶ 18. Sunday night.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Applications for Riley to appear pro hac vice in the Appellate Court (the “Riley Applications”). MD ¶ 8. Moving Parties learned of the Court of Appeals filings from a Riley Application emailed to Jones and Tomaszewski and a casual comment made by Davis to Spivak when Spivak called Davis to coordinate research for the BofA Petition. Stein’s reply made it clear that Stein would not provide copies of the Court of Appeals filings to the Moving Parties. He attached a PDF of an unsigned version of the TRO Petition to that email. (2) on March 15. 2011. a stranger to this action. SD ¶ 35. Riley is apparently one of Stein’s partners in a legal marketing network called Hartford Dunn. the Moving Parties are excluded from the service lists for the Stein-Davis-Riley Court of Appeals filings. D and E to the Spivak declaration. Stein and Davis deleted from the captions of each of the Court of Appeals filings the remaining members of the Ronald legal team – Spivak. See Exhibits C. Maloney and Tomaszewski. 10 Though the BofA Petition unsurprisingly includes the Moving Parties in the service list. See Exhibit F to Spivak Declaration. Jones. and (3) on March 15. Davis and Riley filed a so-called “Preliminary Opposition (and Memorandum) in Response to Defendants’ Petition and Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Other Appropriate Relief” (the “Preliminary Opposition”). 2011. the purpose of Hartford Dunn is to enter into affiliate agreements with lawyers nationwide who are interested in pursuing litigation pertaining to mortgages.” See Exhibit A to SD. 2011. 37. Then. 30-31. Stein warned: “I believe many of the Ronald clients have or shall imminently file suit against SML and Apex. Stein sent an email to Spivak and Tomaszewski seeking assistance with respect to a matter related to the TRO Petition. Davis and Riley filed the TRO Petition. Spivak again requested copies of the filings by email on March 21.

Inc. (5) To control in furtherance of justice. This Court has the power. since he focuses on business endeavors.” Riley is ineligible to be admitted pro hac vice. SD ¶ 38.40(a) of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) provides. and process. Proc. without including Spivak’s comments and a Status Report without first circulating it for review. 22. (2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it. The California legislature has codified this principle by granting power to every court to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it. . in an action or proceeding pending therein. to issue an appropriate order to facilitate the proper and efficient administration of this case It is a well-recognized principle that this Court has statutory and inherent equitable power to issue orders to implement the efficient administration of justice.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Team cohesion and trust was further eroded by the Riley Applications. and indeed the obligation. Proc. . ARGUMENT A. or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority. Code Civ. orders. and to the orders of a judge out of court. professional. MD ¶ 6. or its officers. or other activities in the State of California. The logical inference is that Riley’s name was added to the Court of Appeals filings to give credibility to Riley’s marketing efforts on behalf of Hartford Dunn. SD ¶¶ 18. despite a specific email discussion between Stein and Spivak on that subject. Stein and Davis filed an Opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene Filed by Asset Guardian Plan. (3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it. §128(a) provides in pertinent part: (a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: (1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. in part: “No person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule if the person is . in every matter pertaining thereto. (4) To compel obedience to its judgments. III. Davis was copied on that email discussion. Within the last week. His admission also is illogical. Code Civ. ended his litigation practice many years ago and is not admitted in California. STEIN . §187 also provides in pertinent part: 8 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it. the conduct of its ministerial officers. Regularly engaged in substantial business. Rule 9.

whether by trial or settlement. et al. and in particular with respect to appointment of lead counsel. et al. 55 Cal. There is nothing novel in the concept that a trial court has the power to exercise a reasonable control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before it. or by any other statute. 2d 260. See.g. preparation. 3d 9 (1990). The Court’s broad authority and mandate to assertively ensure efficient administration of a complex case such as this case are well established. et al..” This case has been designated as. Ct. v. and in the exercise of this jurisdiction. App. Pursuant to Standards of Judicial Administration (“SJA”). This Court has broad discretion in issuing orders to ensure proper management of this case and efficient administration of justice.401. Standard 2. 16 Cal. 264 (1940). v. any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code. Standard 3. Standard 2. discovery. and court events is unacceptable and should be eliminated. Berry & Berry. a complex case pursuant to CRC Rule 3. 3d 9 (1990). v.400 and Rule 3. e. App. judicial management should begin early and be applied continuously and actively. et al. all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given. Berry & Berry supra. Asbestos Claims Facility. Sup. Because this case is a complex case. 4th 1264 (1997). any elapsed time other than reasonably required for pleadings. based on knowledge of the circumstances of each case. California courts also look to federal courts for guidance on the management of complex civil litigation.. The often repeated formulation of this Court’s power was first stated by the California Supreme Court in Hays v.. conferred on a Court or judicial officer.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 When jurisdiction is. See Asbestos Claims Facility. the Court has an additional obligation to act early to see that it is efficiently administered. See Lu v.. STEIN . Berry & 9 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. Berry & Berry. Such power necessarily exists as one of the inherent powers of the court and such power should be exercised by the courts in order to insure the orderly administration of justice.10(a).. if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute. this Court has express broad case management authority to keep the proceedings efficient. 219 Cal. by the Constitution or this Code.” SJA.1.1 provides: “Trial courts should be guided by the general principle that from the commencement of litigation to its resolution. In Asbestos Claims Facility. Asbestos Claims Facility. v. Superior Court. “In complex litigation. 219 Cal App..

The legal team. the communications 16 and working relationships among the Stein faction of Plaintiffs’ legal team and the remainder of 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the legal team has fractured. and respect for the legal system.” 219 Cal App. the trial court’s inherent power extends to the appointment of general or liaison or lead counsel to perform certain functions on behalf of several parties with common interests. as demonstrated above and by the annexed declarations. personal dignity. 15 However. Section 4 of the Guidelines provides: “An attorney’s communications about the legal system should at all times reflect civility. professional integrity. integrity. Standard 3. B. Consistent with SJA. morals or behavior of the court or other counsel.” when it appears that an appointment of co-lead counsel should be changed.” Under this section. 3d at 20. 14 Through the leadership of co-lead counsel. a member should withdraw when “The inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by 10 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. the Court should act to make an appropriate change. unilateral acts and lack of consultation and approvals. Pursuant thereto. Plaintiffs comprise numerous individuals who initially retained separate counsel (or sub-sets of the counsel in this case). the case has been brought to this point. ethics. parties or participants when those characteristics are not at issue. STEIN . is no longer functioning efficiently which will adversely affect the team’s ability to effectively represent Plaintiffs As is common in complex litigation. the court observed: “Several federal courts have concluded that in complex civil litigation. The California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism (the “Guidelines”) set the standard of civility in the practice of law in California and have been adopted by the State Bar’s Board of Governors.10(a)’s admonition that case management “begin early and be applied continuously and actively. as originally structured.” Pursuant to CRPC Rule 3-700( C )(3). and that such an appointment does not interfere with a party’s right to select its own counsel.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Berry. To effectively and 12 efficiently represent the clients and administer the case. counsel appointed Stein and then Spivak to be co-lead counsel. an attorney” should not disparage the intelligence.” or “create a false or misleading record of events. counsel coordinated their efforts and 13 forged a team. with threats.

(2) The party must attach to the document presented for filing a proof of service showing service on each person or entity required to be served under (1). STEIN .25(a) provides: (1) Before filing any document. the lack of transparency to the legal team during a period of heightened scrutiny of these matters by BofA. The issue in this Motion is not the quality of any Court filing or decision to this date. Moving Parties are not seeking removal of any counsel in this case. or whether there is anything amiss in any of Stein’s or Davis’ business or legal relationships. Moving Parties are seeking to act in the best interests of all Plaintiffs by avoiding the peril that arises from uncertainty and inconsistency. the reviewing court clerk must not file any record or other document that does not conform to these rules. one copy of the document on the attorney for each party separately represented. the Department of Real Estate and others deprives Moving Parties of the ability to monitor the circumstances in which they are providing legal services and subjects them to the risk of misleading clients and prospective clients. but the separation of the teams will. CRC Rule 8.. See. the Riley Applications and the Preliminary Opposition violates the CRC and imperiled the filings. acrimony and reliance of any member of the current team on any other member of that team. CRC Rule 8. and on any other person or entity when required by statute or rule. but: (i) the undesignation of one of the co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs. That will be in the best interests of all clients. at least. on each unrepresented party. That impairs their credibility and erodes the client-lawyer relationship and with it the ability of all counsel to effectively represent clients. Rule 1-400. It may be that the teams will be able to coordinate their joint prosecution of the case.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 withdrawal. CRPC.g.” Failing to provide or serve Moving Parties with the TRO Petition.18 provides: “Except as these rules provide otherwise. by any method permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure. the team’s assignments. The proof must name each party represented by each attorney served.” (Emphasis supplied). e. Without considering whether Stein’s client solicitations or Hartford Dunn violate any applicable law or rule. and (ii) the separation of the attorneys into separate teams on behalf of their respective clients. Until recently. expectations and 11 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. eliminate the expectations. a party must serve.

Now. Maloney. or not. Counsel have entered into engagement agreements with clients by which they have rights. without apparent authority or misplaced authority. two 12 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. including. Moving Parties may fail to fully discharge their duties and. The legal team has grown and Stein is not required as co-lead counsel or as a counsel with respect to clients who do not object to his discharge Since the filing of this case. Moving Parties are the originating lawyers for a majority of the Ronald clients and may be the originating or co-counsel for nearly all of the Ronald clients Stein is not co-lead counsel because of any action by any client or even this Court. Davis and Moving Parties and their respective clients can work together. 24 25 26 27 28 D. duties and potential liability. 17 particularly Apex. but at least the cloud of uncertainty and risk and intimidation will be lifted. opaqueness and uncertainty about what one counsel may do as a “lone ranger” diminishes the strength of the team and imperils the outcome. Then. clients are best served by discharging Stein as co-lead counsel and as counsel for clients who do not object to his discharge. shortly thereafter. 20 However. He is 16 co-lead counsel because of consensual designation as such by the other counsel in this matter. intimidation. within SML alone. Stein has refused to provide these 23 engagement letters to the Moving Parties. Stein.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 unity of purpose existed to best advance the common good of all plaintiffs. It started with the addition of Spivak and Davis in May 2010 and then. STEIN . Moving Parties have been engaged by not less 19 than 134 of the 247 plaintiffs in the Ronald action. C. in any event. clients may receive less service than they otherwise could and should receive from a unified team that works together to maximize results. Animosity. with the formation of SML. Stein has under his exclusive custody and control Stein-Spivak engagement letters 21 presumably returned by more than 100 of the plaintiffs added to the TAC and additional 22 engagement agreements for potential future plaintiffs. Given the circumstances and dysfunction described herein. the legal team has grown. Moving Parties have a deeper bench of counsel. The actual number likely is materially larger. 18 Pursuant to their engagement agreements. If they are excluded from the decision-making process and the development and execution of strategy.

they will assert their independent positions. opaqueness. Lieff. Where counsel disagree. Cabraser. Granting relief in a timely manner will not only facilitate the efficient administration of justice. clients also will be deprived of the leadership of the lawyers of their selection. 4th 154 (2002). Further. The time for the Court to take remedial action is now. mutually-respectful team with common objectives and focus. See. F. if necessary. leadership and responsibilities are re-assigned and experienced litigators are added to the team. App. inconsistency. a lack of clarity in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s roles can not only prejudice clients’ interests. saving future judicial resources and protecting Plaintiffs. and two other lawyers with extensive litigation experience. unilateral acts. Ferguson v.. each with more than 20 years of experience. They may cooperate (or be required to do so) in assignment of responsibilities to avoid duplication of effort or additional burdens on Defendants or the Court. Replacing Stein as co-lead counsel will not inhibit the representation of all Plaintiffs and likely will cause only a brief interruption in case management as information. It is not anticipated that this will unduly burden Plaintiffs. transparent. Heimann & Bersntein LLP. This Motion does not allege that Stein’s experience and wisdom would not be valuable in a cohesive. 95 Cal. well managed. Moving Parties are entitled to an order compelling Stein to turn over all engagement letters and to an accounting.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 litigators. Defendants or this Court. Moving Parties can bring in additional lawyers. but it will avoid known future pitfalls. the separate plaintiffs’ legal teams may file joinders. Stein may continue to represent those clients who engage him alone or insist on his representation. before prejudice occurs to Plaintiffs and to avoid any future readily avoidable litigation. e. Moving Parties must be able to 13 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. but also lead to future litigation. Stein and Apex had entrepreneurial drive in filing this case. this Motion suggests that regardless of how talented any one lawyer may be. At times. To properly represent their joint or separate clients. Rather. E. The dysfunction among the Plaintiffs’ legal team will adversely affect Plaintiffs if the Requested Relief is not granted. disorganization and unaligned goals outweigh the talent and will harm the best interests of our clients. Indeed. animosity. STEIN .g.

However. or otherwise. clients who may have retained the team based in whole or in part on Spivak’s participation may not know what has proceeded – or.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 confirm their duties and responsibilities to. Stein has concealed both contractual and financial information from Moving Parties. 14 MOTION TO REMOVE MITCHELL J. Without the solicitations pertaining to new proposed clients. 2011. Stein has collected fees and overhead directly and indirectly from clients. whether currently plaintiffs or prospective plaintiffs. Without the requested information. It is critical that there be complete transparency among counsel working on behalf of clients in this matter and who would be entitled to share in a common pool of compensation derived from those clients. supplements and replacements – Spivak has no way to know who was given an offer to retain him. and their relationships with. each of the foregoing has expended their own funds and thousands of hours. the foregoing may be clarified. or Spivak Law Group has ever been paid by or on behalf of any plaintiff or prospective plaintiff in this action. to the extent Moving Parties are unable to reach any of the clients or the clients do not respond. In turn. Moving Parties require copies of the client agreements returned to Stein and/or issued by Stein so that the parties can resolve their rights and obligations and serve the best interest of clients. to the contrary. may not realize why that occurred or the implications thereof. or any of the facts or circumstances pertaining thereto. Spivak has no way to know whether or how Stein responded to the voicemails and emails Spivak forwarded to him. Tomaszewski. SML. who attempted to retain him. Moving Parties are attempting to clarify the status of the engagement agreements entered into as a result of the Stein-Spivak collaboration and the clients’ intentions. Based upon reports to the Moving Parties. By the hearing of this motion. None of Spivak. who did retain him. their clients. Moving Parties have no way to ascertain whether any misrepresentations were made in the nature of those presented to the Court on February 3. received and modifications. STEIN . who has discharged him. Apex. Moving Parties will not be able to reach clients who signed Stein-Spivak agreements where the identities or other contact information of those clients are known only to Stein. if Stein has replaced Spivak in those agreements. Without those agreements – including all versions issued. unless he produces the necessary information. Jones.

.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). 3. The caption on the complaint showed the counsel for all Plaintiffs as being Bridget Jones (“Jones”). Thus. without limitation. 2009. The SAC consisted of 41 named Plaintiffs and retained the same caption as the prior complaints. On March 26. Spivak (“Spivak”) proposed to intervene in this action because. If called to testify. Apex and Stein were introduced by Stein’s wife. 2010. 5. 2009. Following rejection of the intervention. he alleged. 4. 2010. Apex and Stein agreed to work together on a lawsuit. on behalf of his clients and others. I have been a partner in Apex and Apex has been a counsel of record in the Ronald action since the filing of the lawsuit on March 12. 2009. I could and would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge. 43 clients were originated by Apex and one client by Stein. including. 6. On May 14. I am a partner in Apex Legal Group PC (“Apex”).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 TOMASZEWSKI DECLARATION I. the declarant does not intend to waive and does not waive any privileges. Stein and me. 1 Procedural Background 2. On or about June 12. 1. Judge Jones denied the application because it had been made ex parte. 1 TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION . though because counsel agreed to work together. The bank refused to issue any modification or relief. work product protection. no distinction was made. no progress had been made in getting a good complaint on file. On March 12. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California. after she was referred to Apex for help with a loan modification request. Sixteen of the original 17 plaintiffs were Apex clients. the 17th client. Stein and me. 17 individuals filed a complaint in this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The caption again showed the counsel for all Plaintiffs as being Jones. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. Kenin M. declare that: 1. Christopher Tomaszewski. 44 named plaintiffs lodged with the Court a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). after consultation among counsel and with In submitting this declaration.

Agate’s counsel. Ted Maloney (“Maloney”) was added to the caption as an SML LLP (“SML”) attorney. 7. The TAC. The agreements drafted by Spivak did not require any plaintiff to pay a retainer or to reimburse costs. Phillip Kramer.6 peremptory challenge to Judge Jones. we have expended considerable sums and thousands of hours. Stein retained leadership of discovery. Thereafter. The caption again changed far more profoundly when Stein and Davis secretly filed several pleadings with the Court of Appeals. On June 14. filed on July 7. 2010. 2010. drafts of which were circulated among Spivak. Spivak was the principal drafter of the TAC. On May 24. exercised a CCP §170. 10. Separately. As I had been aware for many months as a result of our email interaction. deleting Spivak. Consistent therewith. About a month ago. Davis and me. Spivak prepared engagement agreements to be used by Stein-Spivak and Apex. Plaintiffs named James Agate as a defendant by Doe amendment. Stein. Apex has never been paid for or by any client to be included in the Ronald action. and approved of. 9. 2010. The lawyers on that caption – for all Plaintiffs . unless the action was successful. The Ronald Action then was assigned to this Court. 2010. Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an Order to Show Cause and for a Temporary Restraining Order. named 249 plaintiffs. Jones and me and approved by all of us.remained the lawyers on the caption of all filings in the Ronald action until about a month ago. a stranger to this action. Maloney had been assisting Spivak since about the time Spivak joined the case. this Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Stein recruited Erikson Davis (“Davis”) pursuant to a financial arrangement between them. Jones. though all members of the legal team also contributed to. Riley (“Riley”). The Defendants objected to the preemptory challenge. none of which 2 TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION . Stein invited Spivak to join the case as co-lead counsel with specific responsibility regarding pleadings and research. Maloney and me – and adding Michael S. among other things observing a prior relationship between Stein and Kramer. Those lawyers were: Spivak. 8.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Apex’s approval. on June 21. To the contrary. The Court denied the application. assisted primarily by Maloney. the product. Stein. as described below. Jones. procedures and certain administrative matters. That objection was overruled by Judge Carl West.

when Spivak joined the legal team. by oral agreement and practice of the legal team – until the repudiation of our agreements and practices by Stein and Davis over the last month – all plaintiffs have been jointly represented by all counsel. Stein refused. that meant Apex and Stein. On August 2. Stein has refused to agree to our financial arrangements and as recently as a few weeks ago emailed me to advise it was “unlikely” he would agree to put anything in writing. He then successfully argued the motion in this Court. the Defendants lodged a Notice of Removal. Later. Apex originated 128 clients. After the case was remanded. Stein and I finally again reached agreement on September 16. Davis originated one client and the Stein-Spivak collaboration originated about 110 clients. Stein alone originated two clients (his wife and one other). 2009. 12. He insisted that “our agreement” stood without involving Spivak. In May 2010. To this day. BofA filed its petition for that writ on or about March 11. 15. Stein thereafter repudiated our agreement. Spivak similarly directed the response to BofA’s demurrer and motion to strike and was the principal drafter of Plaintiffs’ opposition and reply. Apex agreed with Stein that Stein would be lead counsel in court. Organization of Legal Team 14. Spivak directed the successful effort to remand the case. At first. When the Ronald action was filed. 2010. resulting in the Court’s overruling the BofA’s demurrer in all material respects. or some other source of money. 2011 (the “BofA Petition”). and arguing the motion before Judge Real. though Stein again refused to put our agreement in writing. the Court certified for interlocutory review a writ by BofA with respect to the TAC’s first cause of action.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 will be reimbursed unless there is a recovery. I proposed to have all lawyers sign an agreement. Spivak and Davis 3 TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION . Spivak alone originated about 10 clients. including being the principal drafter of the remand motion and reply. subject to there being full and complete consultation with Apex and Apex managing relationships with the Apex-originated clients. However. I estimate that of the 249 named plaintiffs in the TAC. Nonetheless. 13. He then again repudiated our agreement and proposed unacceptable terms. 11. There were many discussions about financial splits.

4 TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION . though he has also assisted Stein. At first. To the best of my knowledge. until February (and excluding client solicitations) all team members have contributed to court filings and other important aspects of the case and all team members have approved of the actions of which we have had prior knowledge. Spivak had requested the legal team’s support with respect to certain matters necessary to prepare the Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”). Events and Spivak’s temperament. I noticed a deterioration in Stein’s relationship with Spivak. Apex designates (and has the right to withdraw) “lead counsel” positions. inappropriate and false attacks on Spivak. On a number of occasions. 16. At times. Stein at first ignored the process. By contrast. Among other things. As the originating counsel for a majority of the plaintiffs. Then. wisdom and consultative nature since that time more than justified our confidence in Spivak. collaboration and ability to lead. However. Generally. Stein never supplied the information to the team. he refused to communicate with me and at other times he would call repeatedly as though he was my best friend. 18. events and Stein’s temperament. Davis works for Stein and has also assisted Spivak. He threatened to sue Apex and me. Stein – as he had done throughout our financial negotiations – became abusive. Apex and Spivak worked closely to develop the necessary information. Apex designated Stein.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 joined the team and then Maloney. I expressed my concerns to Stein. Thereafter. Jones and I decided to affiliate with SML LLP as “of counsel” while continuing Apex as a separate law firm. at Stein’s recommendation and based on Apex’s independent investigation of Spivak. Following the February 3. 17. Stein and K2. civility. Commencing in or about late November. 20. 19. then told us he had taken care of what was needed and then purported to instruct Apex not to contact clients Apex or Spivak had originated because he (Stein) already had the needed information. At about the same time. methodologies and threats have raised grave doubts about Stein’s transparency. to the best of my knowledge. Apex agreed to split the lead counsel position between Stein and Spivak because it would serve the best interests of our clients. Stein sent the legal team agitated. 2011 Court hearing in which BofA expressed concerns regarding Kramer. while Maloney generally works with Spivak. Thereafter.

23. 2011 pertaining to the Bank of America (“BofA”) petition for a writ. Spivak performed enormous amounts of work and has been assiduous in consulting with co-counsel regarding his contributions and output. 2011. As a result. Allocation of Responsibility 22. each member of the legal team had been accorded the opportunity by the other members of the legal team to review. I have no idea as to the provenance of these clients or any matters pertaining to the terms on which they have engaged counsel. Until I am comfortable as to the foregoing. 24.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stein insisted that Apex was responsible for Stein’s failure to deliver the information he told the team he had already had. (The Court denied the application and certified it for a writ. Davis and Riley with the Court of Appeals regarding Riley on or about March 14. without prior consultation with me – and to the best of my knowledge without prior consultation with Jones or Spivak – Stein and Davis sent a notice to BofA counsel for a proposed ex parte regarding the addition of 394 plaintiffs to the Ronald action. We were a true team. Then for the first time – ever – since the inception of the Ronald action. 25. and (5) a petition for a writ (the “TRO Petition”) filed on or about March 15. 21. each member of the legal team has shared responsibility for development of strategy and court filings. insisted that Apex come off the caption of the case and threatened to sue Apex and me for manufactured slights. By contrast. 2011which pertains to Apex-originated clients. I was not given any opportunity to review or approve the following key motions: (1) the application for a temporary restraining order filed by Stein and Davis on or about February 28. I do not consent to their addition to the case. all in an effort to push Apex out of the case. 2011. Davis and 5 TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION . (2) pro hac vice applications apparently filed by Stein. Until February 28. he will do whatever is necessary to win. Davis and Riley on or about March 15. (3) a “Preliminary Opposition (and Memorandum) in Response to Defendants’ Petition and Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Other Appropriate Relief” (“Preliminary Opposition”) filed by Stein.). on February 9. Stein has repeatedly made it clear to me that if he is challenged. 2011 by Stein. comment on and approve all key motions and other court filings. 2011. He has threatened that clients and others will sue me.

To the best of my knowledge he has never rendered any services with respect to the Ronald action. He also deleted Jones. Then. has nothing to do with this lawsuit. these attributes are inconsistent with leadership. Spivak and me seeking assistance with respect to a matter related to the TRO Petition. In our place. He also denied recalling any conversations with Spivak agreeing to share the briefing responsibilities with Spivak. to my knowledge. Neither Apex nor I were sent any drafts or the final version of the Riley applications. he denied having received the many emails Spivak sent the team (including Stein. 28. conversations and events makes it very difficult to work as a team in the best interests of our clients. nor had any interaction with him of any nature. Davis and me) regarding his suggestions for the TRO Petition. on which I was copied. despite my repeated requests for those documents and Spivak’s repeated requests. Preliminary Opposition or TRO Petition. neither Apex nor I were formally served with any of the foregoing filings. the status of the TRO Petition draft and the timing of Spivak’s review of the draft. When I finally reached Stein by phone. On Sunday night. Stein’s lack of recall of emails. 26. Spivak. I do not consent to his addition to the team. 30. Further. in that it deprived them of Spivak’s perspective and talents. Stein carried out his threat to delete Apex from the caption of the Appeals Court filings. 29. I expected all key correspondence and court filings to be reviewed by Spivak. Maloney and me. except that I did receive by email a copy of one of the Riley applications.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Riley regarding the Court’s decision denying to the February 28 TRO application. SML. 32. He attached a PDF of an unsigned version of the TRO Petition to that email. he inserted Riley – a person who. Davis or Riley consulted with me regarding adding Riley to the Ronald legal team or Riley’s application for admission pro hac vice. March 27. 27. 2011. I have never met Riley. Spivak’s apparent exclusion was diametrically contrary to my wishes and the best interests of our clients. I am not aware of any valid reason for our exclusion or Riley’s inclusion. Further. 31. Stein sent an email to Davis. 6 TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION . None of Stein.

Executed on March 27. ____________________________ Christopher Tomaszewski 7 TOMEZEWSKI DECLARATION . 34. at Sacramento. SML and most of the clients on one side and a group that includes Stein and Davis on the other. The legal team has fractured into a group that includes Apex. as detailed in certain consumer alert blogs. absent a contrary instruction from any client. to the detriment of the team‟s relationship with the clients and hence. No such change in business model was discussed with me or approved by me. 35. however. Apex believes that SML and Apex can properly represent the interests of our clients and can do so within the bounds of the professional standards that govern lawyers in California. Assuming. By not knowing all of the relevant facts on a “real time” basis. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have been advised by prospective clients that Stein is charging retainers for inclusion in the Ronald case. we are made to look untruthful in front of our clients. Apex therefore withdraws its consent that Stein be a lead counsel in this action and further withdraws consent that Stein continue to represent our clients. if necessary. This concern hampers our ability to work with clients. that the model is being implemented lawfully. 2011. Maloney and the experienced senior litigators Spivak has attracted to SML and. We have received phone calls from clients who have expressed concern about the information on the internet about Stein and Kramer. Apex is entitled to participate in such revenue as co-counsel. decorum or professional conduct are reparable. California. 36. other counsel we can attract. Together with Spivak. to the detriment of our ability to represent our clients.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33. Apex does not believe the breaches in agreement. Our clients have questioned whether Stein is acting in their best interests.

I learned of the Ronald action. including. As co-lead counsel. certain client relations matters and certain administrative matters. to the best of my knowledge and recollection. support. Kenin M. Thereafter. In early 2010. procedures. I have participated to varying degrees in Stein’s areas of responsibility. I joined the Ronald action shortly before the case was assigned to this Court in or about late May 2010. directed most research. Stein (“Stein”). For example. coordinated participation from other team members. with exceptions from late February 2011. 1 SPIVAK DECLARATION . 2011. On behalf of my clients and others. without limitation. 6. Spivak. Mitchell J. I am co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in the Ronald Action. Christopher Tomaszewski (“Tomaszewski”) and Bridget Jones (“Jones”) asked me to join their legal team as co-lead counsel responsible for directing pleadings and research. drafted or revised nearly all filings and argued key motions in court. diligence. Conversely. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California. focus and support of all co-counsel members. Importantly. the effort had been a group effort. I sought to intervene because no progress had been made in getting a good complaint on file. this effort requires cooperation. the declarant does not intend to waive and does not waive any privileges. Stein has participated to varying degrees in the foregoing activities. which include discovery. declare: 2. all counsel contributed to In submitting this declaration and the exhibits hereto. I prepared certain of our discovery requests and worked with an accountant selected by Stein to assist in back-end support. timeliness. 7.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 SPIVAK DECLARATION I. work product protection. until February 2011. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. I could and would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge. 3.1 Background 4. From May 2010 and until February. I have developed key theories. Judge Jones denied the application because it had been made ex parte. If called to testify. transparency. To properly represent the interests of our clients. 5.

Both Stein and I have asserted to the other that the “other” has not lived up to commitments regarding various matters. 9. a senior lawyer with whom Stein also had a close relationship. I have observed Stein’s relationship with my colleague Ted Maloney (“Maloney”). These solicitations contained false claims about the Ronald action. or some of the lawyers refuse to provide copies of Court filings to other lawyers. or if there is no agreement on the financial or management arrangements among the lawyers. his family and his businesses. I discussed the foregoing with Stein and made clear my opposition to any improper marketing efforts. consulted on and approved of each other’s material contributions to the case and jointly developed and executed strategy. 8. has caused my relationship with Stein to deteriorate to the point that Stein has repeatedly threatened clients or others will sue me. That. Stein denied any wrongdoing and denied he had received any retainers. K2 and others to solicitations of clients. He twice arranged for a meal with Phil Kramer. with respect to almost every matter as to which I have assisted Stein. collapse amid Stein’s acerbic attacks in emails copying third parties. 10. Commencing in or about November 2010. If the lawyers on a joint prosecution team can’t work together. I also received reports of so-called marketing agents being paid to solicit clients and large retainers being charged to potential plaintiffs in the Ronald action. along with other factors described herein. We discussed the potential to work together. Phillip Kramer. that will not continue to be true with the current ruptures.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 substantially all aspects of the case. though we would stay in 2 SPIVAK DECLARATION . I noted Internet postings linking Stein. While the legal team may be meeting and exceeding all requirements for a lawyer’s service to a client. it is only a matter of time before the clients suffer. The Relationship Frays 11. My recollection is that the first lunch occurred before I observed these postings. or that they – or he – otherwise reserve their rights. Kramer and I had a private lunch in Sherman Oaks. I have observed Stein’s relationships with Tomaszewski and Jones rapidly deteriorate to the point he insisted their names come off the caption of the case and he refused to communicate with them. but concluded that we should not do so. 12.

Tomaszewski and me and at various times threatened legal action against some or all of us. Stein has become increasingly abusive and inconsistent in his promises. he appeared to 3 SPIVAK DECLARATION . 16. Stein at various times refused to communicate with one or more of Jones. Since late last year. Although neither Stein nor Kramer have admitted to me any violation of any law or ethical obligation – and in fact both Stein and Kramer have denied any violations – my strong position on this issue was apparently off-putting. Stein and K2. after provision for a reserve for litigation costs. demands and actions. Stein refused to comply. (2) as to clients with an appropriate provenance. Stein insisted all clients except approximately 30 originated by me were his clients and that providing copies of the agreements or an accounting would violate attorney-client privilege. 15. Kramer and I scheduled a meeting. I would have no interest in working with him if it turned out that his client solicitations violated professional standards or law. I advised Stein: that: (1) no client could become a client in this action if there was uncertainty about that client’s provenance. after I made clear that while I personally like Kramer. 17. After that hearing. The second meeting occurred among Kramer. Stein also advised me that my positions could violate my fiduciary duties and subject me to claims. 2010. 2010. On December 21. Maloney and SML LLP (“SML”). Apex Legal Group PC (“Apex”). but Stein cancelled the meeting on December 6. 14. At times. Kramer agreed to look into my concerns. Thereafter. Thereafter. Stein and me in Calabasas after a prospective client had sent me an inaccurate mailing he had received. Stein and I were both entitled to share in any retainers in accordance with our understandings. and (3) I needed copies of all Stein-Spivak retainer agreements and an accounting of any income thereunder. 13. for the first time. The situation has materially worsened since the February 3. Stein offered to arrange for me to meet with Kramer to explore my concerns and whether SML or I would be interested in being engaged by Kramer or otherwise participating in his law firm. 2011 Court hearing in which BofA expressed concerns regarding Kramer.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 touch. I again expressed concerns to Stein regarding client solicitations and his failure to provide information on the Stein-Spivak clients. Subsequently.

Stein and Davis refused to provide copies of recent Court of Appeals filings to the Apex or SML lawyers in violation of the legal team’s agreement. without prior consultation with me. Stein and Davis went so far as to delete the Apex and SML lawyers from the caption of filings in the Court of Appeals and to insert the name of a Florida businessman (admitted to practice in Florida). In connection with the preparation of the 4AC. 21. 2011. he asserted that it was somehow my fault. 20. 18. In connection with a separate matter for which Stein was responsible and which he did not attend to (which may not have been due to any neglect or wrongdoing on his part). I do not consent to their addition to the case. other than disagreeing with Stein as to case management. any other team members.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be threatening he would sue us and at other times he appeared to be threatening that “clients” would sue us. the allocation of any retainers properly obtained and the allocation of any fees resulting from a settlement or judgment. On February 9. who has nothing to do with this case. Stein and Davis sent a notice to BofA counsel for a proposed ex parte regarding the addition of 394 plaintiffs to the Ronald action. 19. Michael S. even though he had specifically assumed responsibility and “instructed” Apex to stay out of it. I have no idea as to the provenance of these clients or any matters pertaining to the terms on which they have engaged counsel or whether they have signed some variant of the Stein-Spivak engagement letter. Further. 2011. but then failed or refused to provide the results for use in the 4AC. common sense and Court of Appeals rules. Until I am comfortable as to the foregoing. 2011 that repeated 4 SPIVAK DECLARATION . Stein and his associate Erikson Davis (“Davis”) have abrogated the agreements and practice among counsel by issuing ex parte notices and filing critical pleadings in this Court and in the Court of Appeals without consulting with me or. Riley (“Riley”). Stein issued a press release on March 21. Stein referred to Riley as the former head of the antifraud division of Florida. Stein advised the Court that he intended to move for Riley’s admission to appear pro hac vice. It was never quite clear what our alleged sins were. During a hearing on March 9. Stein claimed that he had taken care of certain important matters. to my knowledge. client solicitations. He blamed the failure on Apex. practice.

2011. Riley was introduced to me by Maloney. I started by researching the cases that had been located by Stein’s office for the TRO Application and provided to the team my analysis. Riley told me that he was thinking of working with Stein on litigation in Florida. 27. the “TRO Petition”) for my review. From the time I joined the legal team and until February 2011. On February 28. 26. an outline of issues to be researched for the TRO Petition and potential bases for the writ. At no time did Stein or Riley consult with me regarding Riley’s proposed involvement in this action. 22. each member of the legal team had been accorded the opportunity by the other members of the legal team to review. Instead. 23. Following a hearing in this Court on the Defendants’ motion to compel and for 5 SPIVAK DECLARATION .com/blog/index. He told me that early in his career he was a junior prosecutor and laughed that Stein persisted in telling people that he had been head of an antifraud division.. 28.mjsteinassocaites. I met Riley on two additional occasions. to the best of my recollection. Stein and Davis filed an application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO Application”) with respect to imminent foreclosures against certain of the Apex-originated plaintiffs.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this assertion.e. Published Riley biographies I have read do not indicate that he was head of a Florida antifraud division.php?p=219. Riley explained that he had been staying in California to undertake various business projects. a true and correct copy of that press release I downloaded on March 24. Stein and I agreed that Stein would write the first draft of a petition (i. See Exhibit B. The Court denied the TRO Application and certified the decision for interlocutory review. 2011 hearing. oversight of additional research. 25. Davis filed the TRO Application without my review. Stein informed me that Davis was adapting a preliminary injunction motion I had written and assured me that I would have ample time to review and “vet” the draft TRO Application in accordance with the legal team’s agreement and practice. Following the March 2. revisions and approval. 24. comment on and approve all motions and other court filings. 2011 from www. Maloney and Riley told me that Maloney had introduced Riley to Stein. We had lunch early this year in Calabasas.

no such agreements have been delivered. As recently as this month he advised me that he had drafted agreements for our financial arrangements pertaining to the Ronald action and would deliver the agreements to me. Stein. Stein responded that his signing a written agreement was “unlikely. including a request emailed to all counsel on March 6. Stein never responded. 2011. Davis told me the Preliminary Opposition and TRO Application had been filed. Davis and Riley filed a socalled “Preliminary Opposition (and Memorandum) in Response to Defendants’ Petition and Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Other Appropriate Relief” (the “Preliminary Opposition”). Stein and Davis filed the Riley Applications. none of Stein. Stein advised me that the draft TRO Petition would be sent to me by Thursday evening (March 10. 2011. Davis or Riley ever provided any of the documents filed with the Appellate Court to SML or me. 2011. I followed up with an email. 2011) or Friday morning (March 11. in an effort to isolate the Ronald action from the broader disagreements between Stein and me. Tomaszewski has asked for a written agreement specifying the team’s financial terms. and (3) on March 15. I called Davis to coordinate his research support for a response to the BofA Petition. which he agreed to send. at “the latest.” 30. As a casual aside. Despite my thereafter emailing and texting repeated requests to Stein and Davis for copies of the filings and my receiving a second promise from Davis’ to send the filings in a telephone conversation at approximately 9 AM on March 16. 2011. Over the last few months. 2011). I repeatedly emailed and texted Stein inquiring as to the status of the draft. 29. Jones sent me a copy of a Riley Application emailed to her by Davis. In emails to the team. Davis and Riley filed the TRO Petition. On March 15. Stein.” When I did not receive the draft. Later that day. I requested copies. However. 2011. 31. At times Stein has agreed to do so – and even offered to do so. I sought to put into writing the financial terms on which the legal team in Ronald is proceeding. (2) on March 15.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sanctions against Stein. to Apex (excluding the Riley Application emailed to Jones and Tomaszewski by Davis). 32. or to my knowledge. Without any prior notice or opportunity to review: (1) on March 14. Davis’ forwarded email does not show me as an intended recipient. 2011. 6 SPIVAK DECLARATION .

First. After reviewing the filings obtained by SML on March 21. March 27. He attached a PDF of an unsigned version of the TRO Petition to that email 36.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33. Stein sent an email to Davis.” Stein later emailed me to deny the accuracy of my response. See Exhibit D a true and correct copy of the proof of service for the TRO Application and Exhibit E. BofA properly served the BofA Petition on Apex and SML. I observed there were no proofs of service for the Riley Applications. after a flurry of emails regarding the mutually agreed premise that it was important I participate in the drafting of status reports – and would do so – Davis on Friday. Davis and Riley excluded all Apex and SML lawyers from their service lists for the TRO Application and Preliminary Opposition. Then. Riley. 35. for my review. All was for naught. I exchanged emails with Stein and Davis last week. deeming it to be utimely. deny involvement in the actions to be taken by clients and “explain” that the writs constitute a separate case. Stein warned me that “many of the Ronald clients have or shall imminently file suit against SML and Apex. When all efforts to obtain the filings from Stein and Davis failed. a true and correct copy of the proof of service for the Preliminary Opposition. Instead of sending the filings. 2011. 2011. Maloney. March 21. a true and correct copy of the proof of service for the BofA Petition. I also observed that Stein. Stein’s response was an emphatic “pound sand” as is seen in the email thread annexed hereto in Exhibit A. I arranged for a paralegal and copying service to go to the Court of Appeals and copy the filings. In our place. 2011. Tomaszewski and me seeking assistance with respect to a matter related to the TRO Petition. but then disregarded my response. 38. Stein and Davis deleted from the captions of each of those filings the remaining members of the Ronald legal team – Jones. I made a final effort to obtain the filings from Stein and Davis. Tomaszewski and me. On Monday. 2011 filed a Status Report without providing a draft to the legal team for its 7 SPIVAK DECLARATION . See Exhibit C. Inc. On Sunday night. which is a true and correct copy of an email thread containing emails between Stein and me. March 25. Davis sent me a draft of an Opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene Filed by Asset Guardian Plan. 37. Stein added to the caption a stranger to this action. 34. In a final effort to rectify things.

I learned that much of Davis’ work is for Stein and that Davis and Stein have an office in the same building. Also as a result of these searches. in light of the fevered pitch of Internet concerns and the concerns of clients and prospective clients who call me. my searches turned up a legal marketing network/law firm named “Hartford Dunn. I disagree with Stein being referred to as lead counsel. 2011 I downloaded from the California Department of Real Estate a “Consumer Alert” entitled “Fraud Warning Regarding Lawsuit Marketers Requesting Upfront Fees for So-Called ‘Mass Joinder’ or Class Litigation Promising Extraordinary Home Mortgage Relief. Within approximately the last month. When lawyer’s credibility is impaired. On or about February 26. Regardless of whether Davis or Stein have. 40. in general. rather than co-lead counsel. instead repeatedly referring to his employer in generic terms. 41. 2011 hearing. my credibility is challenged by not knowing these facts. Kramer and related matters.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 review.” A true and correct copy thereof is annexed hereto as Exhibit G. Late last year. Davis. 2011. 42. Clients 43. Maloney advised me that Davis was employed by Kramer or a Kramer law firm. the ability of that lawyer and that legal team to service the client is also impaired. Stein later confirmed the foregoing. For example. Stein. the right to do whatever they want to do without telling me. Kramer and Riley Join Forces 39. In the last few weeks. 2011.” I downloaded a “White Paper” dated January 15. 2011. I stepped up my Internet searches pertaining to Stein.” He never disclosed to me the identity of his employer. Davis informed me that he had taken a job “in the Valley. I have received phone calls from clients and prospective clients who have expressed concerns about Internet postings regarding Stein and Kramer. In connection with the filing of the TAC and our efforts thereafter to add clients to 8 SPIVAK DECLARATION . I lack knowledge as to certain statements made in that Status Report and I disagree with certain statements made in that Status Report. Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the White Paper I downloaded from the Hartford Dunn website at http://hartforddunn.com/ on February 26. on March 19. Following the February 3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the case, Stein, our families and I phoned individuals who had contacted us to determine their interest in becoming named plaintiffs in Ronald and to assess if they were qualified based on criteria established by Stein. At Stein’s suggestion, I prepared a joint Stein-Spivak engagement agreement therefore (later modified). I estimate that a total of more than 100 plaintiffs in the TAC, as well as many dozens of prospective plaintiffs for later amendments, were generated by our joint efforts. I also prepared an agreement for Apex. After several drafts were circulated and approved by Stein, Stein told me he was using the agreement for new clients. 44. Because I was so busy writing the TAC and with other litigation matters I had taken

over from Stein relating to his family and businesses, Stein agreed to take responsibility for causing the Stein-Spivak agreements to be delivered to the clients, executed and processed. He also said that he had an accountant who could run the back-room operation. 45. The Stein-Spivak and Apex agreements I drafted and all modifications thereto I

prepared did not require any plaintiff to pay a retainer or to reimburse costs, unless the action was successful. 46. As a result of and following this process, one of Stein’s responsibilities was to liaise

with the new clients, while I attempted to get a good complaint on file and attend to my other responsibilities. Throughout this period, Stein confirmed he had been collecting the SteinSpivak engagement agreements and keeping our clients informed of what was occurring. 47. From the filing of the TAC and until today, hundreds of potential plaintiffs emailed

or called me and other members of the legal team. Stein agreed that given my absorption in other matters, he would continue to liaise with the potential new plaintiffs. I forwarded the emails and voice messages I received to Stein for that purpose. Stein’s job was to call (or obtain someone on his staff to call) these individuals, qualify them based upon his criteria and arrange for qualified individuals to sign the last version of the Stein-Spivak engagement letter I had created in August 2010. Stein confirmed on numerous occasions he was doing just that. 48. Neither SML nor I have ever been paid by or on behalf of any plaintiff or

prospective plaintiff in this action. 49. Based upon reports to me from potential clients and brokers, I believe that Stein

9 SPIVAK DECLARATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

modified the Stein-Spivak engagement agreement to include retainers and that he has received retainers. Thereafter, based on the same reports, I believe he deleted me from the agreement and continued to collect retainers. I have never received copies of the engagement agreements delivered to Stein or an accounting, despite repeated requests to Stein therefore. 50. My point is not that retainers are per se wrong. To the contrary, absent violations of

ethics or law, retainers are a good thing and even a necessary thing given the substantial costs of litigation. However, Stein never disclosed to me any such modifications, even in the SteinSpivak agreement and to this day will not disclose to me the information to which I am entitled. Conclusions 51. The legal team has fractured into a group that includes Apex and SML on one side

and a group that includes Stein and Davis on the other. I do not believe the breaches in agreement, decorum or professional conduct are reparable. 52. While Stein may assert the ruptures occurred because of my acts or failings and/or

Maloney’s acts or failings and/or Apex’s acts or failings and that he alone is the only hope for the Ronald plaintiffs, that makes no sense. 53. Excluding Maloney and me, SML’s lawyers include two litigators each with more

than 25 years of experience, another lawyer who has served as lead counsel in 300 trials and adversary proceedings and another lawyer who previously litigated for national firms. If necessary, SML will supplement our lawyers to ensure the plaintiffs are competently and zealously protected. 54. Regardless of who is responsible for casting the first stone or for the first mistake or

for the last stone or last mistake, the rupture is beyond dispute. As a result, co-counsel can no longer act together in the best interests of our clients. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 28, 2011, at Beverly Hills, California.

Kenin M. Spivak

10 SPIVAK DECLARATION

SPIVAK DECLARATION

EXHIBIT A

Kenin M. and cannot be used. March 21. marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.A. Treasury Regulations. Seventh Floor Beverly Hills. 'Erikson M. copying.691.com IRS AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTES: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by U. any disclosure. Spivak Managing Partner SML Law Group 450 North Roxbury Drive. Spivak [KSpivak@SMLlawgroup. This message and its attachments are sent from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure. Davis' 'Bridget Jones'.S. for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting. Tel: +1.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used.5811 Fax: +1.S. Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender unless the sender 1 .691. 2011 12:50 PM 'private. Spivak From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kenin M.310.com] Monday.5809 E-mail: kspivak@SMLlawgroup.com'. distribution or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. California 90210 U.310. 'Ted Maloney' RE: Applications.oceibod@gmail. 'Christopher Tomaszewski'. Writs and Oppositions filed last week Mitch     You clearly have lost it     First  you and ) specifically agreed to jointly prepare the writ consistent with prior practice   By excluding  me from the preparation of the writ  you diminished the potential for it to succeed and violated the trust  of our clients     As to Brookstone  you appear to be out of your mind   Your assertion is   as you know  categorically false  and irrelevant to anything     You have unilaterally destroyed the team  violated the rules of the Appellate Court and apparently  through defamatory mistruths induced clients to take malicious actions     Apparently  your greed knows no bounds and you have elevated your self interest above your duty to the  Ronald clients and your obligations to the team     )f you proceed with legal actions  the actions will be vigorously defended and will result in the  appropriate actions against you     The foregoing is not intended a s a complete statement of my or SML s rights  remedies  claims or  positions which are reserved     Kenin    Kenin M. we inform you that any U. If you are not the intended recipient.

net> Cc: "&apos.com] Sent: Monday. Writs and Oppositions filed last week   As I believe many of the Ronald clients have or shall imminently file suit against SML and Apex. "&apos. had I died.Bridget Jones&apos. Sent from my HTC smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint! ----. 'Ted Maloney' Subject: Re: Applications.com> Mitch and Erik     Despite several requests last week from me and from Chris  including my phone conversation with Erik  and whatever communications Chris or Bridget might have separately had with you  ) have not received  copies of the filings you made last week in the Appeals Court   Though copies were promised  they have  never come     Please now send by email the filings   if the exhibits are voluminous  you can send the table of contents  and ) can then advise Erik if ) need any of the exhibits  which presumably in all or almost all cases )  already have     As ) understand it  you filed two applications to admit Riley  a writ regarding the TRO and some kind of  opposition regarding the BofA writ   ) am entitled to copies of all of the foregoing  as is the entire team   and whether or not entitled to copies  not that ) could imagine  not  being entitled to copies  the failure  to provide copies can t possibly be in the best interests of our clients     Much the same information is necessary for the reply to the preliminary injunction motion and despite  characterizing the submissions as a  masterpiece   and it may be  there might have been something left  out or a mistake made     ) have neither received copies as of course as your co counsel  nor have ) been officially served with  copies as required by the rules     2 . Davis' Cc: 'Bridget Jones'. 2011 11:28 am Subject: Applications. "&apos. Mar 21.oceibod@gmail. Spivak" <KSpivak@SMLlawgroup.Erikson M.com [ mailto:private.Ted Maloney&apos.com> Date: Mon.e. Writs and Oppositions filed last week To: "&apos. March 21.. and as the writ is a different and new case." <erikdavis@att. Davis&apos.  specifically states otherwise. "&apos.Christopher Tomaszewski&apos.com>. I am certain you and Chris -.Reply message ----From: "Kenin M. If you have received this email in error." <bridget@apexlegal.org>." <private." <tmaloney@SMLlawgroup. no writ would have been or could have been filed and indeed none was "in the works" by the Apex/SML team) -.org>. 2011 12:40 PM To: Kenin M. Spivak. 'Erikson M. please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system.RC Admin&apos." <chris@apexlegal.oceibod@gmail.oceibod@gmail.who were neither prepared nor capable of protecting the clients with effective writ practice (i. 'Christopher Tomaszewski'.understand the answer to the two of your inquiries. Thank you for your cooperation. From: private. and as you reportedly either own or control Brookstone law which is being sued by a Trustee in bankruptcy.

distribution or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited.0. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used.5809 E-mail: kspivak@SMLlawgroup.com Version: 10. any disclosure. Treasury Regulations.691.   No virus found in this message. Tel: +1. Thank you for your cooperation. marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.S. California 90210 U.5811 Fax: +1.S. copying. Spivak Managing Partner SML Law Group 450 North Roxbury Drive. Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender unless the sender specifically states otherwise.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3520 . If you are not the intended recipient. This message and its attachments are sent from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure.A. Seventh Floor Beverly Hills.310. If you have received this email in error. please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Checked by AVG .com IRS AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTES: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by U.www.Release Date: 03/21/11 3 .310. we inform you that any U. for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting. and cannot be used.avg.691.Either way  let s end this childishness with the simple attachment of some documents to an email and the  push of the button entitled  send     Thank you     Kenin  Kenin M.S.

SPIVAK DECLARATION EXHIBIT B .

Mitchell J.” said Mitchell J. formerly CATEGORIES Legal News (9) Videos (1) Sign me up! ARCHIVES March 2011 (4) February 2011 (1) January 2011 (5) LINKS Brookstone Law MJ Stein & Associates NETWORKING Register Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress. The lawsuit alleges Bank of America (BOA) perpetrated a massive fraud. The Firm is unaware of any mass joinder case in which the Court has accepted the complaint and allowed Plaintiffs to proceed.com/ blog/ index. the first mass joinder case filed against the banks following the bank fraud and economic “meltdown” of the 2008. Esq. it was announced today by Mitchell J. “The scale of fraud we allege was perpetrated by Bank of America in this case is the reason we are working in partnership with Mike Riley. Mr. Esq.J. “The fraud we allege resulted in a mortgage meltdown which has lead to decreased home values throughout the state of Florida. On January 11. Ally Bank.mjsteinassociates. in which the Firm is representing more than one thousand California consumers against attempted foreclosures by Bank of America. Bank of America. BC409444.php?p= 219[ 3/ 24/ 2011 1:56:50 PM] . Stein & Associates is also leading the landmark lawsuit. as a result of the Bank’s actions. In addition to the landmark Ronald case. Esq.. In October 2010. 2011. and that BOA intended to deprive numerous rights and remedies for the problems they caused the borrowers. Files Mass Joinder Lawsuit Against Bank of America in Florida « Mitchell J. Riley. a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge ruled that the Ronald case states valid causes of action against Bank of America allowing for discovery and depositions that are now being conducted as the case moves forward in California State and Appellate Court. borrowers lost equity in their homes. 2011 admin No Comments Mitchell Stein. Stein & Associates has filed a mass joinder lawsuit against Bank of America (BOA) in Florida. Mitchell J. Esq. the lawsuit claims the Bank disregarded underwriting standards and implemented a massive fraud that was concealed from borrowers and other mortgagees on an unprecedented scale. According to court documents. The Firm has filed suit in Florida in behalf of a mass joinder of plaintiffs seeking damages and injunctive relief as a result of the Bank’s fraud and violations of the Deceptive Practices Act in Florida. Stein filed the suit along with former Florida State fraud chief Michael M. Bank of America. Stein & Associates Type here and press enter to search Social Network: MITCHELL J. a mass joinder case against Ally Bank and its affiliates. The lawsuit alleges that. BC409444.org http:/ / www. former State of Florida Fraud Chief. “Our case will prove the Bank did not care about borrowers who would suffer from actions that would generate profits for them and allow them get out before the truth of their activities was exposed. STEIN – BIOGRAPHY LEGAL NEWS VIDEOS BANK LITIGATION PHILANTHROPY CONTACT US LEGAL NEWS Mar 24. Esq. Ronald v. Stein. 17th Circuit 11004756. The Firm is co-counsel in the case with former State of Florida Fraud Chief Michael Riley. The case is rapidly moving forward in California State and Appellate Court. Esq. their credit ratings and histories were destroyed and they incurred unnecessary costs and expenses. Stein. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. Files Mass Joinder Lawsuit Against Bank of America in Florida M. resulting in the loss of net worth. another of potentially the most significant and precedent-setting legal actions taken against lenders as a result of the national foreclosure crisis. Esq. Fla. The case is Brewer v. Stein & Associates. has also filed lawsuits against other major banks and lenders on behalf of aggrieved consumers including Locker v. Mitchell J. also constituting unfair competition upon borrowers that devastated the values of their residences. Stein & Associates obtained an order in favor of all clients and against the Bank from Federal Judge Manuel Real who to one of the Bank’s arguments as “absurd” and threw the Bank out of Federal District Court with respect to the case.Mitchell Stein. Superior Court Los Angeles. of Mitchell J. Stein.

Files Mass Joinder Lawsuit Against Bank of America in Florida « Mitchell J. a 25-year award-winning litigator. Leave a comment Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Comment © 2010 MITCHELL J.P. In that regard.mjsteinassociates. Mergers & Acquisitions. J.” said Mitchell J. a mass joinder case against the J. “Bad actors must be held responsible for the irreparable and massive damage done to people’s lives and the State of Florida due to their unbridled greed and avarice. financier. ABOU T M I T CH ELL J . and Carlson v. Stein received the inaugural Mitchell J. a high percentage of the Firm’s business has been from repeat customers and referrals.mjsteinassociates. Mr. as a result. Bank Problems. The Firm’s philosophy is based on the belief that their clients’ needs are of the utmost importance and. Commercial and Residential Foreclosures . Stein & Associates is a California-based law firm founded by M.com/ blog/ index.” said Mitchell J. Visit http://www. Superior Court Los Angeles. “In this case. we are representing thousands of homeowners who as a result of horrible practices have wrongfully lost their homes or are facing wrongful foreclosure. Stein. and entrepreneur who has represented many of the world’s largest companies and has been involved in some of the highest profile cases in the Nation’s history. Mr. Morgan Group on behalf of dozens of citizens and homeowners. and Bankruptcy Litigation.com or http://www. STEIN & ASSOCIATES "YOU HOLD THE LEASH" http:/ / www.php?p= 219[ 3/ 24/ 2011 1:56:50 PM] . Esq. Stein. Stein & Associates GMAC. Stein. have received assistance following unfortunate events that subjected them to oppression or mistreatment. over the last 15-years.Mitchell Stein. BC452262. Stein is also the founder of VIPS Foundation (Victims of Injustice Pain and Suffering). Esq.P. The Firm’s practice areas include Complex Litigation.J.dobielaw. Morgan. Stein Benefactor Award from the National Organization for Victims Assistance (NOVA) for his work in protecting victims’ rights.org for more information. Esq. ST EI N & ASSOCI AT ES Mitchell J. through which victims nationwide. trial lawyer. Esq.

SPIVAK DECLARATION EXHIBIT C .

.

.

SPIVAK DECLARATION EXHIBIT D .

.

SPIVAK DECLARATION EXHIBIT E .

.

SPIVAK DECLARATION EXHIBIT F .

The land grab has not yet reached epidemic proportions because of the presence of trial lawyers throughout America. All rights reserved. Congress and the banks said to do: Modify their mortgages. Banks do not have a financial incentive to modify mortgages any longer. trial lawyers were the only ones standing in the background as a safety net for the American citizenry. litigation has often been the only source of relief. Furthermore. Banks would much rather foreclose on the property today and get to liquidate it at a time of their choosing. banks across the United In this history of America. banks are denying 94% of all modification requests. Their alternative is to most likely foreclose on the property a year from now at a substantially reduced market value (it is projected that property values will decrease an additional 20% in 2011). No one is working on a modification for you. banks took the TARP money and began grabbing land. If the bank does give the homeowner a modification. Instead. 2011 Mortgage Litigation Affiliate Practice States are dragging their feet in the hope that homeowners get frustrated with the negotiation process and give up. They are a scam! or You should demand your money back.White Paper ." . they must reduce the value of the mortgage asset on their balance sheet. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. This is unfortunate. once banks modify a mortgage (if that event ever happens). because the United States Government advanced more than $1 trillion in TARP money so that the banks would not drag their feet. Loan Modifications Do Not Work! As the last two years have demonstrated.January 15. Going back to the beginning and heritage of America. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Copyright 2011. Knowing that the banks are the ones guilty of wrongdoing. Page | 1 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. which may trigger audits from regulators like the FDIC and ultimately may result in the bank becoming bankrupt or insolvent. and the bank always reserves the right to welch on the modification and go back on it. it will most likely save them only a couple of dollars a month. If the homeowner paid a third party to perform a modification. While all this has been happening. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. will not reduce the principal balance. We can do this for you for free. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. It makes this process all the more frustrating for the homeowner because the banks want the homeowner to give up. the banks then turn the borrower s attention to the loan modification lawyer or other professional by using multi-million-dollar lobbying firms to pass legislation or otherwise politically blame those who are merely doing what the President of the United States. their lender will call and tell the homeowner lies like.

trial lawyers are where the American public is turning today. Examples of changes that fell into the trial lawyers safety net. the Supreme Court decision that established that a right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. much of the positive progress of our society and the numerous consumer protections we take for granted would likely not exist." .Throughout our history. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Hartford Dunn. Benefits of Mortgage Litigation Actual Lawsuit Is Filed Can Provide Real Results Powerful Litigation Attorney Representation Affordable Solution for Homeowners Takes the Power Away From Banks Protect Your Home Hartford Dunn. LLP has evaluated the problem and believes that mortgage litigation represents the only viable alternative at this time in American history to protect homeowners: The backbone of our society. In conjunction with lawyers across the Country. Hartford Dunn. All rights reserved. the landmark decision that declared separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional and paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement. we consider a few from the many: From Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. in working with lawyers. From social policy to the safety and quality of consumer products. Copyright 2011. established annual payments to states to compensate them for medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses and funding a national anti-smoking advocacy group. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998 that settled Medicaid lawsuits in 46 states. With this backdrop. has put together a turn-key system that allows you to start offering mortgage litigation as a readily accessible solution in a matter of hours. many of the most important and far-reaching advancements of American society have been achieved through the work of trial lawyers fighting for the rights of citizens and consumers. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. LLP has evaluated lawyers state-by-state and. many of the most celebrated and important achievements of American social progress have been the result of the litigation by dedicated lawyers working within the system to help citizens realize their rights and protections. to Roe Vs Wade. Without the tireless work of these conscientious trial attorneys. just and fair country under the Law. litigation has made it possible for us to progress as a nation and become a more equal. Many experienced legislators and experts believe litigation may be the only alternative. LLP provides all the required backend services to support the litigation process. I am very confident that we will be able to help you and I think you will quickly Page | 2 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. curtailed tobacco marketing practices. Our focus is on providing the very best customer service and attorney services for companion law firms nationwide.

Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. Unique and Heightened Experience or Skills. we invite your attention to the best and the brightest lawyers in this field from our experience and research: If you have any questions. Asterisks (*) Denote Particular. these are the top lawyers -. Skip Miller NY John Golden Brian Murray Paul Rheingold FL Mitchell Pollack *Willie Gary Mark Kaire TX Andrew Needle James A. Valet. LLP is affiliated with any attorney. Nothing in this list infers that Hartford Dunn. * In our view. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Hereafter. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. Shkolnik & McCartney Mitchell Pollack & Associates Needle & Ellenberg Law Offices of Mark A.see why our customers find our attorneys to be the experts when it comes to helping them get their financial issues resolved. call us and we will discuss a particular attorney with you. Rheingold. All rights reserved.in the area of bank litigation brought by members of the general public. Kaire The Ferraro Law Firm Caddell & Chapman Cynthia Chapman Page | 3 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. Baugh Taylor Law Group Miller Barondess Phan Law Center Louis R. Frank & Sailer Llp Rheingold." . Copyright 2011. Taylor Luan Phan AKA The Doberman FIRM Mitchell Stein & Associates The General The Gladiator Law Offices of George L. Ferraro Albert Buzetti & Associates Ginsberg & Katsorhis Murray. STATE NAME CA *Mitchell Stein *Philip Kramer Richard Kaslow George Baugh Paul N.nationally -.

Broyles Leonard Gabbay Eric Brunick *Daniel Edelman Racehorse Miller Curtis & Weisbrod Richard Haynes & Associates Bailey & Galyen Goins. P. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information.C Parsons Behle & Latimer NV M. Crawford & Langdon Walker & Crawford Freed & Weiss Leonard B Gabbay PC Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin Keis George LLP Kenney & Conley MA Warren S. All rights reserved.L. Michael Conley George Keches *Keith Halpern Jeffrey Denner Kyle Kring Keches Law Group Keith Halpern Law Kring & Chung Denner Pellegrino. L.C Page | 4 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law.L. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. P. Copyright 2011.C Patrick McDonnell *Timothy Conboy Marc Scaringi Robert Pierce The Law Offices of McDonnell & Associates Scaringi & Scaringi.. Esteban-Trinidad Law.C Robert Peirce & Associates. P. Bloom Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P. Bloom William Ballaine Law Offices of Barry Levinson Huber & Palsir The Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Lani Esteban-Trinidad --------------------------------Daniel Allred Barry Levinson Robert Huber MD PA Jeffrey M. L.C. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy. Underkofler.Louis Haki *Richard Haynes JC Bailey III Jim Walker IL Frank L. George J." .P. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr.

Stein & Associates Los Angeles. CA Defendant Company Bank of America Mitchell J. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. Naturally. LLP has relationship with Law Firms that are taking the fight with us against the banks. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. The attorneys are using the leverage of the lawsuit to get results. banks are vilified in today s society. Hartford Dunn. We can assess your case and see how many potential litigation cases you fit into based on your circumstances and profile." . Stein & Associates Los Angeles. We will continue to serve you on all cases you qualify for as a Plaintiff and this gives you more strength in numbers. the homeowner will have attorneys on their side fighting for their rights in the US court system. Law Firms With Active Cases of the Kind We Provide Backend Support (Click on Defendant Company to view case detail) Mitchell J. All rights reserved. the attorneys follow the client s instructions surrounding settlement of the litigation. banks will be held accountable for the bad mortgages that were written and the unresponsiveness they had in providing financial relief to the homeowners who were victimized. NA Kramer & Kaslow Oceanside. CA Defendant Company GMAC Mortage Mitchell J. CA Defendant Company JP Morgan Chase Bank Kramer & Kaslow Oceanside. CA Defendant Company One West Bank Group LLC Page | 5 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. Copyright 2011. CA Defendant Company Wells Fargo Bank. CA Defendant Company Citibank Corporation Kramer & Kaslow Oceanside. Stein & Associates Los Angeles. Banks will no longer have the power to make the decision as to what the homeowner will get. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. Remember.Mortgage Litigation against Your Lender With mortgage litigation. In the event the client so chooses. they will attempt to settle the suit for a principal reduction and rate reduction. If bank litigationmatters go to a jury trial. they will present this in front of a jury and attempt to get the mortgage free and clear. If the bank will not settle. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr.

Utah Defendant Company ReconTrust. Esq. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. LLP Class Action Attorneys Indianapolis. & CitiMortgage Frydman. & John Christian Barlow Salt Lake City. BOA. Does 1-10 Forizs & Dogali. LLC New York. New York Defendant Company Stephen J Baum. Darryl Herrick Law Offices of Christie Arkovich Tampa. Anderson. Esq. Esq.. Esq. Inc. Pels. LLP Washington DC Defendant Company CitiGroup. Craig Smay. Peter Ostrem. Cuneo.A. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Florida Defendant Company GMAC Mortgage E. HSBC others (see complaint) Law Offices of Heather Boone McKeever Lexington." . Bethesda. Wells Fargo Bank. Reiner.Guldenschuh & Associates Georgia Defendant Company Jon D. Maryland Defendant Company HSBC Mortgage Corp. Kentucky Defendant Company Page | 6 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. Baum. Esq. PC.. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. All rights reserved. US Bank. BAC Home Loan Servicing. Bank of New York Melon. Esq. Lawrence J. Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1 other Hudson Funding entities. New York Defendant Company Goldman Sachs. Florida Defendant Company Cohen & Malad. Copyright 2011. and Jennifer Schiffer. Gilbert & LaDuca. MERS. Indiana Defendant Company Bank of America Susan Chana Lask New York. Stephen J. P. Justin M. MERS. Keybank . HSBC. Tampa.

Nationstar.Mers. GMAC. Copyright 2011." . Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. Aurora. llp. Citi. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. All rights reserved. DC. Florida Defendant Company BAC home loans servicing. Fairway America.. New York. Deutsche Bank National Trust. PLC Irvine. BAC. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. New York Defendant Company Ocwen Federal Bank. New York Defendant Company Chase Home Finance Lauren Paulson Aloha. US Lanza & Smith. US Bank National Association Friscia & Associates Newark. New Jersey Defendant Company Bank of America Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein New York. Deutsche. California Defendant Company Bank of America The Ferraro Firm Miami. Florida Defendant Company Law offices of David Stern. Washington DC Defendant Company Aurora Loan Services Bank of America Kenneth Eric Trent Oakland Park.LLC. MERS Figuerora vs Mers Page | 7 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. Skylands Investment Corporation Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Washington. Ocwen Financial Ebanks & Sattler. FHLF. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. Oregon Defendant Company Fairway Commercial Mortgage Company.

Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr." . aggressive litigation specialists dedicated to positive results for your case The Mortgage Litigation Process Evaluation Phase Discovery Phase Litigation Phase Settlement / Trial Phase Page | 8 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. skill and resources without sacrificing client-centric focus Skilled legal counsel in national and international real estate law and litigation Support from Hartford Dunn. LLP. effective and accessible 24-7 customer service Experienced. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.Beneficial Program for Clients Fee is a fraction of the cost of traditional litigation Real results compared to modifications Actual lawsuit filed against lender Major law firm experience. specialists in litigation against banks leverage over banks and lenders Opportunity to participate in mass joinder litigation gives individuals greater legal Staff and litigators trained in cost-containment and attention to detail Responsive. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship.

Type of Clients Who Can Benefit: Have been turned down for a loan mod. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. Copyright 2011. IT IS ABOUT TIME YOUR CLIENTS DO THE SAME.Claims Against Lenders Include: Malfeasance 3rd-Party Beneficiary Claims Unfair Business Practices MERS Violations Statutory Violations Phantom Investors and Beneficiaries Fraudulent Foreclosure Practices Identity Theft Thousands of Americans have reclaimed their lives through mortgage litigation. The banks have attorneys working hard on their sides. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Have multiple properties Have too much debt Don t have a hardship Have received previous modifications Are current on their mortgage Facing foreclosure Are in bankruptcy Page | 9 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. We are an industry leader in matching clients with qualified legal representation they need and deserve." . All rights reserved. Our network of attorneys provides clients with all the information they need to make well informed decisions about their mortgage situation.

Copyright 2011. sign and send back the agreement We will open up an online CRM account Start submitting your business today We will handle everything else. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. LLP Agreement Fill out. LLP Affiliate Network: 1 2 3 4 Request a Hartford Dunn. Riley and has a "Of Counsel" working relationship. accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information. Director Bank Compliance Page | 10 "This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. I sincerely hope the foregoing information is helpful to you and I invite you to contact us or any of the foregoing law firms in the event you wish to learn more about the Litigation Solution." . It is that easy! On behalf of all Plaintiff lawyers in the United States attempting to ameliorate the wrongdoing of banks and financial institutions from 2004 through 2011. All rights reserved. Sincerely. LLP Michael Riley. HARTFORD DUNN.Getting Started in the Hartford Dunn.

SPIVAK DECLARATION EXHIBIT G .

unlicensed entities. and lawyer referral entities that offer and sell false hope and request the payment of upfront fees for so-called "mass joindef' or class litigation that will supposedly result in extraordinary home mortgage relief. lt prohibited any person. scams in connection with short sale transactions. Senate Bill 94 was signed into law in California. from charging. This alert is written to warn consumers about marketing companies. Obtain Loan Principal Reduction. Senate Bill 94's prohibitions seem to have significantly impacted the rampant fraud that was occurring and escalating with respect to the payment of upfront fees for loan modification work. California Department of Real Estate HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF THROUGH LITIGATION (and "Too Good to Be True" Claims Regarding lts Use to Avoid and/or Stop Foreclosure. and other real estate and home loan relief scams. and so-called attorney-backed. and to Let You Have Your Home "Free and Clear" of Any Mortgage). The Department continues to administratively prosecute those who engage in such fraud and to work in collaboration with the California State Bar. There are certain exceptions for lawyers and real estate brokers. attorney-affiliated.2009. State and local criminal law enforcement authorities to bring such frauds to justice.CALLED "MASS JOINDER" OR CLASS LITIGATION PROMISING EXTRAORDINARY HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF By Wayne S. the Federal Trade Commission. claiming. Also.Galifornia Department of Real Estate ** COA'SUMER ALERT** FRAUD WARNING REGARDING LAWSUIT MARKETERS REQUESTING UPFRONT FEES FOR SO. That alert was followed by warnings and alerts regarding forensic loan audit fraud. . Bell Chief Counsel. certifications and credentials in connection with home loan relief services. including real estate licensees and attorneys. demanding. and federal. On October 11. forensic loan auditors must now register with the California Department of Justice and cannot accept payments in advance for their services under California law once a Notice of Default has been recorded. false and misleading designations and claims of special expertise. lawyers. and it became effective that day. collecting or receiving an upfront fee from a homeowner borrower in connection with a promise to modify the borroweds residential loan or some other form of mortgage loan forbearance. The California Department of Real Estate ("DRE" or "Department") previously issued a consumer alert and fraud warning on loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams in California.

They are complying with State laws and regulations governing the "same type of conduct the [FTC] rule requires". the Federal advance fee ban. They are engaged in the practice of law. Discussions about Senate Bill 94. 4. an important and broad advance fee ban issued by the Federal Trade Commission became effective and outlaws providers of mortgage assistance relief services from requesting or collecting advance fees from a homeowner. But those who continue to prey on and victimize vulnerable homeowners have not given up. . They are licensed in the State where the consumer or the dwelling is located. This alert and warninq is issued to call to vour attention the often overblown and exaoqerated "sales pitch(es)" reqardinq the supposed value of questionable "Mass Joinder" or Class Action Litiqation. and mortgage assistance relief is part of their practice. or some other official. They place any advance fees they collect in a client trust account and comply with State laws and regulations covering such accounts. Lawver Exemption from the Federal Advance Fee Ban -The advance fee ban issued by the Federal Trade Commission includes a narrow and conditional carve out for attorneys. with the qoal of takinq and qettinq some of vour monev. They just change their tactics and modify their sales pitches to keep taking advantage of those who are desperate to save their homes. important or impressive sounding title(s).ca. and the Consumer Alerts of the DRE. Mortgage Loan Litigators.On January 31 . Whether they call themselves Foreclosure Defense Experts. Thev are makinq a wide varietv of claims and sales pitches. Living Free and Clear experts. This requires that client funds be kept separate from the lawyers' personal and/or business funds until such time as the funds have been earned. are available on the DRE's website at www. lf lawyers meet the following four conditions.oov. And some of the frauds seeking to rip off desperate homeowners are trying to use the lawyer exemption above to collect advance fees for mortgage assistance relief litigation. It is important to note that the exemption for lawyers discussed above does nof allow lawyers to collect money upfront for loan modifications or loan forbearance services.dre. individuals and companies are marketing their services in the State of California and on the Internet. they are generally exempt from the rule: 1. with quite extraordinarv remedies promised. and offerinq impressive soundino leqal and litiqation services. 3. 2011 . 2. which advance fees are banned by the more restrictive Califomia Senate Bill 94.

9. The mortgage loans can be stripped entirely from your home. Or at the very least. you must be cautious and BEWARE. or have a ring or hint of truth. Some of the claims above might be true in a particular case. You can stop paying your lender. "the damages sought in your behalf are nothing less than a full lien strip or in othenryords [sic] a free and clear house if the bank can't produce the documents they own the note on your home. You can join in a mass joinder or class action lawsuit already filed against your lender and stay in your home. ll. The litigation will take the power away from your lender. 10. Discussion. the marketing materials say. or to reduce your principal. The lawsuit will give you the leverage you need to stay in your home. Please don't be fooled by slick come-ons by scammers who just want your money. What are the Claims/Sales Pitches? They are many and varied. The litigation will be performed through "powerful" litigation attorney representation. as discussed below in Section lll. Your payment obligation and foreclosure against your home can be stopped when the lawsuit is filed. ln one lnternet advertisement. 7. 6. B. QUESTIONABLE AND/OR FALSE CLAIMS OF THE SO. Be particularly skeptical of all such claims. 2. lt will give you a step up in the loan modification process. The lawsuit may give you the right to rescind your home loan. A. and give you a 2% interest rate for the life of the loan". damages could be awarded that would reduce the principal balance of the note on your home to 80% of market value. Litigation attorneys are "tuming the tables on lenders and getting cash settlements for homeowners". 4. A jury will side with you and against your lender. 3. but you must carefully examine and analyze each and every one of them to determine if filing a lawsuit against your lender or joining a class or mass joinder lawsuit will have any value for you and your situation. 8 The lawsuit will help you modify your home loan.While there are lawyers and law firms which are legitimate and qualified to handle complex class action or joinder litigation. since agreeing to participate in .CALLED MORTGAGE LOAN DEFENSE OR "MASS JOINDER" AND CLASS LITIGATORS. And certainly check out the lawyers on the State Bar website and via other means. 5. based on the facts and evidence presented before a Court or a jury. and include: 1.

Also. and very importantly.ca. Also. someone other than your lender. The investor will most assuredly argue that your claims against your originating lender do not apply against the investor (the purchaser of your loan). The reality is that litigation is time-consuming (with formal discovery such as depositions. absent a court judgment or order. a significant upfront retainer fee is required).calbar. expensive. they are not legally required. exaggerate or make bold statements regarding their litigation successes. even assuming that the lawyers can identify fraud or other legal violations performed by your lender in the loan origination process. charge you for a retainer. to modify your loan or to halt the foreclosure process if you are behind in your payments. 4 .such litigation may require you to pay for legal or other services. Make certain that they are licensed by the State Bar of California.. leave you with a home "free and cleaf' of any mortgage loan(s). ascertain the name of the lawyer or lawyers who will be providing the services. lf they happen to lose the lawsuit. legitimate and trained lawyer(s). Then check them out on the State Bar's website. your loan may be owned by an investor that is. Before entering into an attorney-client relationship. There are two other important points to be made here: First. will provide the remedies that the marketers promise. There can be no guarantees or assurances with respect to the outcome of a lawsuit. - Second. they can appeal. and usually vigorously defended. And even if your lender still owns the loan. motions. as noted above. THE KEY HERE IS FOR YOU TO BE ON GUARD AND CHECK THE LAWYERS OUT (Know Who You Are or May Be Dealing With) .9. or paying for "legal" or litigation services. which will not provide for any helpful remedies. it can appeal. loan modifications and other types of foreclosure relief are simply not possible for every homeowner. Even if a lender or loan owner defendant were to lose at trial. requests for admissions. requests for documents. often before any legal work is performed (e. and leave you with less money.Do Your Own Homework (Avoid The Traps Set by the Litigation Marketing Frauds). lf they are licensed. even if performed by a licensed. the violations discovered may be minor or inconsequential. This is where the lawsuit marketing scammers come in and try to convince you that they offer you "a leg up". and the "success rate" is currently very low in California. there is no statistical or other competent data that supports the claims that a mass joinder and class action lawsuit. see if they have been disciplined. ilt. at www. interrogatories. make lofty sounding but hollow promises. and the like).qov. and the entire process can take years. They falsely claim or suggest that they can guarantee to stop a foreclosure in its tracks.

######tt### . The scammers continue to adapt and to modify their schemes as soon as their last ones became ineffective. Also. Check them out through a Google or related search on the lnternet. Please be careful. lf they provide you with a list. and take the time to fully understand what the attorney-client contract says and what the end result will be before proceeding with the services. Ask the lawyers if they are class action or joinder litigation specialists and ask them what specialist qualifications they have. Then ask what they will actually do for you (what specific services they will be providing and for what fees and costs). detailed questions about their litigation experience. CONCLUSION Mortgage rescue frauds are extremely good at selling false hope to consumers in trouble with regard to home loans. Most importantly. For example. call those people and ask those former clients if they would use the lawyer or law firm again. Often consumers who have been scammed will post their experiences. as the litigation services provider might be so new that the Better Business Bureau may have little or nothing on them (or something positive because of insufficient public input). you should ask them how many mortgage-related joinder or class lawsuits they have filed and handled through settlement or trial. do your own diligence to protect yourself. civil or administrative action has been brought against the scammers. And please understand that this is just another resource for you to check. insights. and be highly suspect if anyone asks you for money up front before doing any service on your behalf. Promises of successes through mass joinder or class litigation are now being marketed. tv. Get that in writing.Check them out through the Better Business Bureau to see if the Bureau has received any complaints about the lawyer. You may be amazed at what you can and will find out doing such a search. Ask them for a list of current and past "satisfied" clients. ask them lots of specific. Ask them for pleadings they have filed and news stories about their so-called successes. Remember to always ask for and demand copies of all documents that you sign. clients and successful results. DON'T LET FRAUDS TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY. and warnings long before any criminal. law firm or marketing firm offering the services (and remember that only lawyers can provide legal services).

I have personal knowledge of the following facts.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 MALONEY DECLARATION I. Riley has explained that he is in Los Angeles for various business endeavors. Although I have only recently become a counsel of record. On a part-time basis over an approximately 45-day period. I have known Michael S. I have met Riley on numerous occasions in Los Angeles. I have been one of the lawyers for Plaintiffs in the Ronald Action for nearly 10 months. also with Erikson Davis (“Davis”). Riley (“Riley”) for approximately 12 years. late last year. 1 MALONEY DECLARATION . without limitation. I introduced him to Stein late last year while I was working with Stein. the senior partner of which. 7. I am a lawyer with SML LLP (“SML”). My name was not on the pleadings in the Ronald action until very recently because my prior firm consented to my assisting. Bridget Jones (“Jones”) and Christopher Tomaszewski (“Tomaszewski”). 5. 6. I could and would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California. including with Stein. 4. I performed those services primarily in an office in the same suite as Stein and certain other lawyers I was informed had been retained by Kramer. also with Mitchell J. Stein asked me to assist with respect to preparing discovery and certain other matters. Since learning of the finalization of my plans to join SML in December 2011. including. the declarant does not intend to waive and does not waive any privileges. but asked that I keep my name off the pleadings. Spivak (“Spivak”) is co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in the Ronald Action. I have worked closely with Spivak (“Spivak”) and at times. After I had been working primarily with Spivak regarding the Ronald case for several months.. During social events. a law firm established by Spivak. work product protection. Effective as of the beginning of this year. During that time. Over the last several months. If called to testify. I joined SML. Kenin M. In submitting this declaration. Stein (“Stein”) and to a lesser degree. declare that: 1. Ted Maloney. 2. 1 3.

.

6. 1 JONES DECLARATION . In submitting this declaration. It has been my observation that Spivak performed enormous amounts of work and was also assiduous in consulting with the other co-counsel regarding his contributions and output. then told us he had taken care of what was needed and then purported to instruct Apex not to contact clients. Spivak and I worked closely to develop the necessary information. As the originating counsel for a majority of the plaintiffs. Apex agreed to split the lead counsel position between Stein and Spivak because it would serve the best interests of our clients. i. If called to testify. 2. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California.. 1 3. Then. For a time. Stein never provided the information he said he had. Stein threatened to sue Apex. declare that: 1. I am a partner in Apex Legal Group PC (“Apex”). Spivak had requested the legal team’s support with respect to certain fact matters necessary to prepare the Fourth Amended Complaint. work product protection.e. I could and would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge. at Stein’s recommendation and based on Apex’s independent investigation of Spivak. Bridget Jones. without limitation. though events have raised grave doubts about Stein’s transparency and collegiality. Stein insisted that Apex was responsible for Stein’s failure to perform that which he had told the team he had already achieved.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 JONES DECLARATION I. 2009. Stein at first ignored the process. I have personal knowledge of the following facts. Apex designates (and has the right to withdraw) “lead counsel” positions. That is an important attribute in a team leader. Events since that time and more than justified our confidence in Spivak. Among other things. 5. including. the declarant does not intend to waive and does not waive any privileges. a lead counsel. I have been a partner in Apex and Apex has been a counsel of record in the Ronald action since the filing of the lawsuit on March 12. he would not communicate with me. At first. Thereafter. 4. Apex designated Stein.

comment on and approve all motions and other court filings. I expected all key filings to be reviewed and directed by Spivak. Neither Apex nor I were sent any drafts or the final version of the foregoing filings. neither Apex nor I were formally served with any of the foregoing filings. (3) a “Preliminary Opposition (and Memorandum) in Response to Defendants’ Petition and Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Other Appropriate Relief. 2011. 2011 by Stein. or Spivak . I noticed that Spivak was not on the distribution list for that application and so I forwarded it to him. or (4) a petition for a writ filed on or about March 15. Spivak’s exclusion was diametrically contrary to our wishes and the best interests of our clients. 11.Stein and Davis sent a notice to BofA counsel for a proposed ex parte regarding the addition of 394 plaintiffs to the Ronald action. on February 9. 10. Davis and Riley on or about March 15. except that I did receive by email a copy of one of the Riley applications. (2) pro hac vice applications apparently filed by Stein. to the best of my recollection. Christopher Tomaszewski. Riley (“Riley”) with the Court of Appeals regarding Riley on or about March 14. 2011. I have never met Riley. in that it deprived them of Spivak’s perspective and talents. I have no idea as to the provenance of these clients and do not consent to their addition to the case. Davis and Riley regarding the Court’s decision pertaining to the March 1 TRO application. We obtained copies of the Court of Appeals filings only after SML engaged someone to go to court to obtain the documents. 2011. We obtained copies of the Court of Appeals filings from SML after Stein again refused to provide copies by email on March 21.” apparently filed by Stein. 2011. 8. Until February 2011. 2011. I was not given any opportunity to review or approve: (1) the application for a temporary restraining order filed by plaintiffs on or about February 28. Further. 2011. Davis and Michael S.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. By contrast. Davis or Riley consulted with me regarding adding Riley to the Ronald legal team or Riley’s application for admission pro hac vice. each member of the legal team had been accorded the opportunity by the other members of the legal team to review. without prior consultation with me – and to the best of my knowledge without prior consultation with my partner in Apex. None of Stein. 9. nor 2 JONES DECLARATION .

I have received phone calls from clients who have expressed concern about the information on the internet about Stein. I declare under penalty of perjury that the forego-ing is true and correct. To the best of my knowledge he has never rendered any services with respect to the 12. at Sacramento. decorum or professional conduct are reparable. 15. in turns. Not having all information 'pertinent to allegations of a relationship between Kramer and Stein damages our credibility and that. I do not believe the breaches in agreement. action. Assuming. I recently learned from prospective clients that Stein has apparently charged case. and have questioned whether he is acting in the best interests of the clients. I therefore withdraw my 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 consent that Stein be a lead counsel in this action and further withdraw consent that Stein continue to represent my clients.1 had any interaction with him of any nature. however. 14. The legal team has fractured into a group that includes Apex. California. Apex is entitled to participate in such revenue as co-counsel. 25 26 27 ~~ 28 Bridget Jones 3 JONES DECLARA nON . No such change in business model was discussed with 7 8 9 retainers for inclusion in the me or approved by me. that the model is being implemented lawfully. I believe that Apex and SML can properly represent the interests of our clients and can do so within the bounds of the professional standards that govern lawyers in California. SML and most of 10 11 the clients on one side and a group that includes Stein and Davis on the other. 16. I do not see how the legal team can best represent our clients in these circumstances. 2 3 4 5 6 Neither Stein nor Davis have ever disclosed to me that Davis is employed by Phil Kramer or a Kramer law firm. I do not consent to his addition to the team. Executed on March 28. that Stein and Davis worked near each other in the same office building in Calabasas or that Davis renders considerable legal services for Stein. as detailed in certain consumer alert blogs. 13. impairs the team's ability to represent our clients. This concern hampers our ability to work with clients. 2011.

private. I €rm aware lhat on motion of t.oceibod@gmail. NameofAttorney. Kenin M. nafiz.I.com Keith K1ein. Esq. net Robert E. Esq. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles.ve. Seventh Floor. Mitchell J. CA 90025 IJAW OFFTCES Erikson M. California in the ordinary cgurEe of business.]. Stej-n. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES r am employed in the County of Los Angeles. California 90401-2385 suite 300 (X) (BY MAIL) I a. Spivak. STEIN & ASSOCIATES 2950 Buskirk Avenue. Stace of California.com 22 (x) 23 24 25 26 27 2A (x) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California t. . STEIN TO TI'RN OVER ENGANGEMENT AGREEME}ITS AND FOR AN ACCOUNrING. CA 90210.PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DAVIS 11574 Iowa Avenue. Ted MaLoney.Points and Authoritiesr Declarations of Christopher Tomaszewski.AINTIFFS.he party served. Boone. Boone fII Keith D. Santa Monica. Esq. 300 walnut Creek. Esq.cekirge@bryancave. On March MOTTON Ai{D MOTION TO RSMOVE 28. Esg.s. Stein. (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) f caused such envelope to be deliwered by hand to the offices of the addressee. fII. Eaq. Proof of Service . 10 11 T2 OF ERIKSON M. I am over Lhe age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within acti-on. Beverly Hi1ls. eri-kdavis@att. reboone@bryancave.( ) (vIA EMAIL) I caused such docunent to be sent via email as follows: Mit.h Roxbury Drj. I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF MIrCI{EL J. TO COMPEI.urent to be senE via facsimile to. Suite 104 Los Angeles. My business address is: 450 Nort.I.com Erickson M. Esq. (BY FACSIMILE) 19 2A 2T I caused such docu.Jones and Exhibits on Lhese parties in this act ion . Dawis. CA 94597 MITCHEI.hat the above is true and correct.klein@bryancave. Bridget . keith.n rreadily faniliarn with this firm's practice of colleition and processing correspondence by mailing. STEIN AS CO-LEA-D COITNSEL FOR PLAI}flrIFFS AND AS COI'NSEL FOR SPECIFIED PI. Ste. 2017. Klein Nafiz Cekirge BRYAN CAVE I. under that practice it would be deposited with U.com Nafiz Cekirge.P I4 'tq 16 L7 18 1. t_3 Robert E.chell if. service is presr:ned invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for rnaiLing in affidavit. Davj-s.20 Broadway.

20lL. I am employed in the offi-ces of a at v/hose direction the service was made. in Beverly Hi1Is.I decl-are that. Cali-f ornia I o 10 11 L2 13 L4 L5 l5 t1 18 19 20 2I 22 a1 24 tq )R 27 Proof of Service . (FEDERAI.) member of this court Executed this 28th day March.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.