SC13-1333 Third Amended Complaint

Electromcalls Filed regfrac14N] 3 Ol0divide W lM ET

RliFI ]V]middotD 930NI iuml ] 1339 Thomm D Hall Clck 5upremc ( omi

IN THE CIR CULT COURT OF THE 15 JUDICIA L CIRCUlT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO 502004 CA006138XXXXMB AO

STEWART TILGHMAN FOX amp BIANCH1 PA aprofessiona] association WILLIAM C H EARON PA a professiona] association and TODD S STEWART P A aprofessional association

Plaintiffs

-vs

MARKS amp FLE]SCHER PA a pmfessiona] association KANE amp KANE a Florida general par1nership and LAURA M WATSON PA diba WATSON amp LENTNER a professional corporation GARY H MARKS AMIR FLEISCHER CHARLES L KANE HARLEYN KANE LAURA M W ATSON and DARIN J LENTNER

Defendants

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs STEWART TILGHMAN FOX amp BIANCH1 PA WILLIAM C

HEARON PA and TODD S STEWART PA sue the Defendants MARKS amp FLEISCHER

PA KANE amp KANE and LAURA M WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENTNER

GARY H MARKS AMIR FLEISCHER CHARLES J KANE HARLEY N KANE LAURA

M W A TSON and DARIN J LENTNER

l This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars (51500000)

exc lusive of interest and costs and for the imposition of a constructive trust

Exhibit A

Stewart v Marks Complaint Page 2 of 16

2 The Plaintiff STEWART TILGHMAN FOX amp BIANCHI PA (STFB) is a

professional association of attorneys practicing law in the State of Florida with its principal place

of business being in Miami-Dade County Florida

3 The Plaintiff TODD S STEWART PA is a professional association practicing

law in the State of Florida with its principal place of business being in Palm Beach County

Florida

4 The Plaintiff WILLIAM C HEARON PA is a professional association

practicing law in the State of Florida with its principal place of business being in Miami-Dade

County Florida

5 The Defendant MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA is a professional association

practicing law in the State of Florida with its principal place of business being in Broward

County Florida

6 The Defendant KANE amp KANE is a Florida general partnership practicing law

in the State of Florida with its principal place of business being in Palm Beach County Florida

The Defendants CHARLES J KANE and HARLEY N KANE are equal partners in said

partnership

7 The Defendant LAURA M WATSON PA is a professional association doing

business as WATSON amp Lentner and practicing law in the State of Florida with its principal

place ofbusiness being in Broward County Florida

8 The Defendants GARY H MARKS AMIR FLEISCHER CHARLES J KANE

HARLEY N KANE LAURA M WATSON and DARIN J LENTNER are attomeys at law


licensed to practice law in Florida The Defendants CHARLES J KANE and HARLEY N

KANE are residents of Palm Beach County Florida The Defendants GARY MARKS AMIR

FLEISCHER LAURA M WATSON and DARIN LENTNER are residents of Broward County

Florida

9 At all times material hereto the defendants acted jointly in conceit and as agents

of one another concerning the matters alleged herein and further ratified the wrongful acts of

each other by inter alia knowingly acting together to achieve a secret settlement of all claims

and accepting the benefits of said settlement as set forth below

10 The law firm defendants through their owners and attorneys the individual

defendants represent approximately 440 healthcare providers who treated individuals who were

insured under certain Progressive automobile insurance policies Said healthcare providers had

submitted bills for treatment to the Progressive insurance companies but the insurance companies

had failed to pay the full amounts due There were approximately 3000 instances where the

Progressive insurance companies had failed to pay the amounts due

11 The failure of the Progressive insurance companies to pay the bills gave rise to a

benefit claim by the healthcare providers for the amount that the Progressive insurance

companies wrongfully failed to pay Under Florida law the prevailing party in a benefit claim

arising out of an insurance contract is also entitled to an award of attorneys fees The amounts

involved in the individual benefit claims are such that the predominate part of the awards in the

benefit claims would inure directly and solely to the defendants Each of the law firm defendants


had at various rimes sought to settle the benefit claims of their respective clients with the

Progressive insurance companies without success

12 The issues in the benefit claims were limited so that the healthcare providers were

not entitled to discover the means and methodologies by which the Progressive insurance

companies reduced the healthcare provider bills or whether the Progressive insurance companies

were engaging in any improper conduct

13 In 2001 the defendants engaged the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp

Stewart to institute a bad faith action against the Progressive insurance companies Suit was filed

in the Circuit Court of the 15deg Judicial Circuit In and For Palm Beach County Florida Drs

Fishman amp Stashak MDs PA et al v The Progressive Corporation et al Case No CA 01shy

11649 AB In early 2002 the defendants engaged the plaintiffs to take over that litigation

Plaintiffs formally filed their notices of appearance and substituted as counsel of record on behalf

of the healthcare provider plaintiffs in February and August 2002

14 To induce the plaintiffs to take over the Fishman amp Stashak case defendants

falsely represented to the Plaintiffs that all of the client healthcare providers were upset with the

way they had been treated by Progressive insurance companies and wanted to pursue bad faith

actions against the Progressive insurance companies and that defendants themselves wanted to

pursue the bad faith claims against Progressive Defendants never disclosed that their true intent

was to use plaintiffs expertise and efforts in the bad faith case to force a settlement of the benefit

claims and to sacrifice the former to achieve the latter when and if the need arose Defendants

further informed plaintiffs that they had authority to act on behalf of their clients and control of


both the benefit and bad faith claims These representations and the circumstances made to

appear by defendants omissions were material to Plaintiffs undertaking and were relied on by

Plaintiffs

15 At the time that plaintiffs were engaged to take over the bad faith action plaintiffs

and defendants agreed to jointly develop and implement strategies to advance both the benefit

and bad faith claims of all healthcare providers that defendants would act to perfect the bad

faith claims and make the client healthcare providers available for bad faith claims that plaintiffs

would prosecute bad faith claims not only on behalf of the then-named plaintiffs but on behalf

of the defendants other clients whose bad faith claims were being perfected that negotiations

with Progressive on any bad faith claims would be handled by the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs

fee would be based upon settlement of the universe of bad faith claims or upon the judgment in

the bad faith case The relationship thus created between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the

prosecution of the claims of the healthcare providers was that ofjoint venturers which created a

fiduciary relationship between plaintiffs and defendants pursuant to which each owed the other

the utmost good faith faimess and honesty Pursuant to that fiduciary relationship between the

plaintiffs and the defendant plaintiffs specifically placed trust in defendants and the defendants

accepted that trust

16 From January 2002 through May 2004 plaintiffs prosecuted the bad faith claims

including but not limited to filing amended complaints initiating and responding to discovery

requests and filing memoranda and briefs in both the trial and appellate courts The work was

voluminous and time consuming and advanced the rights of the named plaintiffs in the above bad


faith case as well as the present and future bad faith claims of all healthcare providers Plaintiffs

efforts resulted in rulings on May 19 2003 and August 12 2003 that the Progressive insurance

companies had to produce a large number of intemal documents that it is believed will

conclusively establish Progressives bad faith and the healthcare providers entitlement to an

award of punitive damages The Progressive msurance compames appealed those rulings and

on December 5 2003 the District Court of Appeal Fourth District denied the Progressive

insurance companies petition for certiorari The Progressive Corporation et al vs Drs

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA et al Case No 4D03-3551 The District Court of Appeal

denied Petitions for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc on January 20 2004

17 The ruling of the District Court of Appeal Fourth District created an opportunity

to initiate settlement discussions with the Progressive insurance companies Plaintiffs devised a

plan whereby the plaintiffs would negotiate to settle all of the claims that the healthcare

providers had against the Progressive insurance companies beginning first with the bad faith

claims and then proceeding to the benefit claims Defendants agreed to the plan and authorized

plaintiffs to negotiate on behalf of the defendants to settle the benefit claims and provided

plaintiffs with parameters for settlement At this point defendants again represented that

plaintiffs would be acting on behalf of all of defendants clients and that their fee would be based

upon settlement of all of the bad faith claims not just those of the named plaintiffs in the

pending case

18 Settlement discussions continued through April 2004 The Progressive insurance

companies made substantial offers for a settlement of all of the bad faith claims Defendants

Stewart v Marks

Complaint Page 7 of 16

were advised and informed of those offers and negotiations No settlement however was

reached and plaintiffs demanded production of the internal Progressive documents which were

due under the prior court orders When the Progressive insurance companies failed to produce

the documents plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions That motion was set for

hearing on May 6 2004

19 In early May 2004 acting secretly and for their own interests defendants

undertook settlement discussions with the Progressive insurance companies They did not advise

or inform plaintiffs of said discussions At the time defendants were aware that as a result of

plaintiffs efforts the Progressive insurance companies faced imminent sanctions for refusing

productions

20 On or about May 18 2004 it appears that the defendants acting to seize and

capitalize on information they obtained from plaintiffs settlement discussions with Progressive

insurance companies and to convert an opportunity of the joint venture to their own personal

gain secretly negotiated a settlement with the Progressive insurance companies The settlement

jointly and indivisibly included both the benefit claims and all bad faith claims Following the

settlement the Defendants unilaterally assigned all of the settlement proceeds to the benefit

claims so that the predominate part of the settlement would inure solely and directly to the

defendants and plaintiffs rights to attorney fees would be eliminated Subsequently on June 16

2004 in a further effort to create circumstances to limit plaintiffs rights defendants sought and

obtained the Progressive insurance companies agreement to execute an amended settlement

agreement in which the defendants reallocated the settlement proceeds to assign an arbitrary and


unreasonable sum to the Fishman amp Stashak case The balance of the original settlement

remained jointly and indivisibly assigned to both the benefit claims and the bad faith claims of

all the other clients Following the amended settlement agreement Defendants once again

unilaterally assigned all of the remaining settlement proceeds to the benefit claims so as to

continue to benefit themselves and deny plaintiffs any attorney fees

21 In secretly settling the bad faith claims of all healthcare providers and unilaterally

assigning settlement proceeds to the benefit claims defendants acted in bad faith contrary to the

fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and for the unjust enrichment of their own financial gain at

the expense of the plaintiffs and their healthcare provider clients To gain approval of the

settlement from the healthcare provider clients defendants misrepresented the facts by providing

false and incomplete information Defendants further acted to terminate plaintiffs services by

making it a condition for the healthcare providers to obtain the settlement proceeds and

defendants then disbursed the majority of the attorney fees to themselves notwithstanding The

Florida Bar Rules governing trust accounts and plaintiffs claim to the attorney fees

COUNT I BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

22 Plaintiffs hereby reallege paragraphs 1 though 21 as if specifically set forth

23 At all times material and as is more fully alleged in the preceding paragraphs

plaintiffs and defendants were engaged in joint venture to pursue bad faith and other claims

against the Progressive insurance companies which included both litigation and settlement

activities As such plaintiffs and defendants as joint venturers agreed to combine their efforts

time and expenses for this professional engagement

Stewart v Marks


24 Plaintiffs and defendants as joint venturers had a community of interest in the

prosecution and resolution of the litigation against the Progressive companies either by trial and

verdict or by settlement

25 As joint venturers plaintiffs and defendants had a right to share in the proceeds or

profits of the engagement as well as a duty to absorb any losses should the case be lost

Similarly as joint venturers plaintiffs and defendants had a right of control but also had an equal

obligation to treat the other with the utmost candor honesty and fair dealing

26 The defendants conduct in acting secretly and for their own interest was a

material breach of the fiduciary duties existing between the plaintiffs and each defendant which

arose from the special relationship of trust and confidence existing between the defendants and

plaintiffs as partners in the joint venture formed among them These material breaches include

the breaches of the duties of loyalty fidelity honesty candor fair dealing and full disclosure

owed by the defendants to the plaintiffs

27 As a direct and proximate result of the defendants breach of fiduciary duties

owed to the plaintiffs plaintiffs have suffered damages which have accrued and are continuing to

accrue

28 Defendants breach of the fiduciary duties existing between the plaintiffs and each

defendant were further in bad faith abusive in reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights and

intentionally done by defendants for their own financial gain


WHEREFORE plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants for damages interest

costs prejudgment interest from May 17 2004 punitive damages and for such other relief as the

Court deems fair and just

COUNT II CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

29 Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 21 as is specifically set forth

30 As a result of the secret negotiations and secret settlements with the Progressive

companies and the unilateral assignment of the settlement proceeds the defendants in direct

violation of their fiduciary duties concealed significant and material aspects of both the

negotiations and the actual settlements and took improper advantage of the fiduciary relationship

existing among the plaintiffs and the defendants at the expense of the plaintiffs who confided in

the defendants their efforts strategies and litigation plans

31 The resulting secret negotiations settlements and unilateral assignment of the

settlement proceeds have abused the confidential and fiduciary relationships existing among the

parties and have resulted in an unconscionable advantage being taken by the defendants over the

plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have suffered damages resulting therefrom

32 Defendants abuse of the confidential and fiduciary relationships existing among

tlie parties and the unconscionable advantage taken by the defendants of the plaintiffs was

accomplished in bad faith through the use of intentional deceit and deception and in reckless

disregard ofplaintiffs rights for the defendants own financial gain



costs prejudgment interest from May 17 2004 punitive damages and such other relief as this

Court deems just and proper

COUNT III CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

33 Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs I through 21 as if specifically set forth as well as

paragraphs 24 through 27 in Count I and paragraphs 30 and 31 contained in Count IL

34 By virtue of the joint venture relationship existing among the plaintiffs and the

defendants the defendants promised expressly or impliedly to work for the benefit of the

plaintiffs their fellow joint venturers Instead by secretly negotiating and settling the litigation

pending against the Progressive companies by unilaterally assigning the settlement proceeds

and by transferring the settlement funds to their own accounts defendants wrongly took

property that in part rightfully belongs to the plaintiffs The defendants have unjustly enriched

themselves thereby

35 These actions have resulted in damage to the plaintiffs which is irreparable in

nature because the defendants have concealed and have continued to attempt to conceal the

settlement negotiations the settlement amounts and the settlement terms In addition once

settlement funds are received and distributed they will be forever dissipated and unrecoverable

36 Plaintiffs do not seek to impose a constructive trust on any proceeds of any

settlements which should go to the health care provider clients Instead plaintiffs only seek the

imposition of a constructive trust on all proceeds which constitute attorneys fees and costs

Stewart v Marks Complaint Page 12 of I6

WHEREFORE plaintiffs request the court to impose a constructive trust on the fees and

costs received by the defendants in their secret settlement in the amount of the fees and costs

wrongfully appropriated from the plaintiffs and to assess damages interest costs prejudgment

interest from May 17 2004 punitive damages and such other relief as the Court deems fair and

just

COUNT IV FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

37 The allegations of paragraphs 1-20 are realleged and incorporated herein by

reference

38 As set forth in paragraplis 14 and 16 above defendants represented at the outset

that all healthcare provider clients were upset and wanted to pursue bad faith claims against the

Progressive insurance companies and that plaintiffs would be able to prosecute the bad faith

claims on behalf of all of said clients not just the named plaintiffs whose bad faith claims had

been perfected at the time plaintiffs were engaged and that defendants themselves wanted to

pursue the bad faith claims In addition defendants represented that plaintiffs would be solely

responsible for any settlement negotiations conceming the bad faith claims and that plaintiffs

would be entitled to a fee based upon the settlement or trial of the bad faith claims

39 In January of 2004 when the opportunity to settle with Progressive arose

defendants enlarged plaintiffs engagement and in addition to having authorized plaintiffs to

negotiate the settlement of the bad faith claims defendants also authorized plaintiffs to negotiate

the settlement of the underlying benefit claims agreeing to increase plaintiffs portion of any fee

Stewart v Marks Complaint Page I3 of 16

generated by the bad faith claims from 60 to 75 as compensation therefore At this time

defendants again represented that plaintiffs were acting on behalf of the universe of clients not

just those whose claims had been perfected and asserted in the pending bad faith case and that

plaintiffs fee would be calculated on the value of all of the bad faith claims

40 The above representations were knowingly and intentionally false Moreover

defendants always intended to use plaintiffs expertise and efforts in the bad faith case to force a

settlement of the underlying benefit claims and to abandon the bad faith claims to achieve such a

settlement when and if in their view the need arose - a highly material fact the defendants failed

to disclose

41 Defendants intended for plaintiffs to rely upon their misrepresentations and

plaintiffs did rely on them by expending their time effort and expertise to prosecute the bad faith

claims and force Progressive to the settlement table

42 Plaintiffs were damaged by their reliance upon defendants misrepresentations

when pursuant to their fraudulent scheme defendants secretly settled the healthcare claims

unilaterally assigned the settlement to the benefit claims and voluntarily dismissed the bad faith

claims

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants for damages interest




COUNT V QUANTUM MERUITUNJUST ENRICHMENT

43 In the altemative the allegations of paragraphs 1-21 are realleged and

incorporated herein by reference

44 The Plaintiffs prosecuted the Fishman amp Slashak case negotiated with

Progressive on behalf of all of the benefit and bad faith claimants incurred costs in that effort all

at the behest of defendants and with the expectation of being paid

45 Defendants were aware of the services plaintiffs were providing of the benefits

those services provided and ofplaintiffs expectation of being paid for their work

46 Defendants accepted plaintiffs services and retained the benefit of those services

by inter alia secretly settling the benefit and bad faith claims with Progressive and allocating all

attorney fees to themselves to the exclusion of the plaintiffs

47 Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result and under the circumstances

it would be inequitable for them to retain all of the attomey fees without paying plaintiffs for the

value of their services In addition andor in the altemative under the totality of all of the

circumstances plaintiffs are entitled to a reasonable fee for their services plus reimbursement of

their costs

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs altematively demand judgment against the defendants for the

reasonable value of their services andor the amount by which defendants were unjustly enriched

interest costs prejudgment interest from May 17 2004 and such other relief as the Court deems

fair and just


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above has been mailedfaxed to

all counsel on the attached list this day of October 2005

FRYOcircOslashRY BARNHART Florida Bar No 217220 Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart amp Shipley PA

2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Post Office Drawer 3626 West Pahn Beach FL 33402 Phone (561) 686-6300 Fax (561) 478-0754 - fax

I lutronmdly Fded w242013 09 3h02

RI ( I ] H) 2420 l i 10 15 14 I honw () Hall ( lerk Supremc ( ourt

Hi t(1R ) l| I ili k I) l )k (( iexcln)

R ( tgt( l Ritl li h

R R 1Ri] frac14 v

)Il( l ()I H)R1l(||l(tl 5

e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B

Companies (hereafter referred to as Progressive) regarditig Personal injury Protection claims

(hereinafter referred to as PlP elaims)

2 You and the other P1P claim attorneys pooled your resources and solicited health

care providers throughout Florida By 2002 vou with the other P1P claim attorneys collectively

had approximately 440 health care provider clients who had some 2500 PIP claims for unpaid

bills and associated attornevs fees auainst Prouressive

3 In 2002 you together with the PIP claim attorneys decided to pursue bad faith

claims against Progressive in addition to the PIP claims

4 1n 2002 you joined with the PIP elaim attorneys in hiring Stewart Tilghman Fox

amp Bianchi William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (hereinafter referred to as the

had faith claim attorneys) to handle the bad faith claims

5 Such bad Faith claims were Aled in the case stvled Fishman amp Stashack Hil

PA d b a (iexcloldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al Case

No CA-01011649 in the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach

County Florida (llereinafter referred to as --Goldcoast)

6 The PIP claim attornevs includinu vourself entered into a contract with the bad

faith claim attorneys wherein suit would be brought againsi Progressive alleging the bad faith

claims on behalf of your mutual clients It was contemplated that the clients would receive 60

of that recoverv and the attornevs fees would amount to 40 1t was further aereed by the

parties that the bad faith claim attorneys would receive 60 of the attorneys fee so recovered

7 Initially the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group of approximately 40

healthcare providers It was contemplated that had faith claims would ultimately be asserted on

behalfof all ofthe clients ofthe PIP claim attornevs

R In the course ofsaid litieation vou and the PIP claim attorneys provided the bad

faith claim attorneys with a list of 441 healthcare provider clients with either perfected or to be

perfected bad tiiith claims and then approv ed a master claim list of said clients to be used in

settlement negotiations with Progressive

9 You the PIP elaim attorney s and the bad faith attorney s worked together for

approximately two years

10 The bad faith claim anorney s successfully obtained fav orable rulings requiring

disclosure of discovery by Progressive which strengthened the case Specilically the bad Faith

claim attorneys had obtained a ruling requiring Progressive to disclose damaging internal billing

records This ruling provided leverage for all had Faith and PlP claims

11 In January 2004 the bad Iugraveith claim attorneys commenced settlement negotiations

with Prouressive which continued for the next several months

12 You and the other PIP elaim anorneys were periodically updated

11 in 11av 2004 certain PlP elaim anorners on their behalf and on voor behalf

secretly met with Proutessiv e and neuled all claims without notice to the had faith claim

attornevs

14 1he settlement was an aggregate settlement of S145 million dollars for all PlP

elaims and all esistinu or future bad iugraveith claims of all 441 heahheare prov ider cliems It was

agreed to by you and the PIP elaim anornegtgt uithout prior notice to or obtaining a fully

informed consent from the clients I he methodology used bv v ou and the PlP elaim attornes s

w as intended to maximize v our attornes s fees at the expense of the clients and the bad faith

claim attornevs

15 To memorialize the settlement the PlP claim attorneys met with the Progressive

attorneys and dralled a Memorandum of l nderstanding (hereinafter referred to as MOU)

which documented that all of the healthcare providers PIP and bad faith claims whether filed

perfected or just potential were settled for the undifferentiated amount of S I 45 million dollars

16 The secret settlement agreement between the PlP claim attorneys and Progressive

failed to allocate any monies to the bad faith claims ahhough all the claimants were expected to

release such claims

I 7 Atier learning of the settlement and discovering that no monies had been allocated

to the had faith claims the bad faith claim attorneys protested and objected to the MOL

18 Thereafter the MOU was amended arbitrarily allocatinu S175 million dollars of

the total settlement towards the settlement of the Goldcoast plaintiffs had faith claims

19 Again no monies were allocated to the bad faith claims of approximately 4(JO

clients who were not included in the Goldcoast case although those claims were required to be

released as part of the settlement

20 To consummate the settlement you and the other PlP claim mtorneys prepared

letters addressed to the healthcare provider clients The letters did not disclose the several

conflicts ofinterest inherent in the settlement did not provide the clients a closing statement and

did not advise the clients of the material facts necessarv to make an informed decision about the

case or execution of the releases

21 You and the other PlP elaim attornevs received the settlement funds from

Progressive on or about June 22 2004 and these funds were placed within the respective

attorneys trust accounts 1pon information and helief the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba

Watson and Lentner received the amount of S307500000 1rom which S36147030 in

benefits were paid to your clients You failed to provide your clients with closing statements as

required by Florida Bar rules

When the bad faith claim attorneys learned the particulars of the secret settlement

they also notified you and the other PlP claim anorneys that in accordance with Florida Bar rules

governing claims of disputed ownership of property all of the attorneys fees should be held in

escrow

23 You did not hold the funds in trust and instead disbursed the settlement fees

contrary to Florida Bar Rules reuulatinu trust accounts

24 By the conduct set forth above you violated R Regulating Fla Bar 3-42

Violation of the Rules of Professional (onduct as adopted by the rules governing The Florida

Bar is a cause for discipline| 3-43 The standards of professional conduct to be observed by

members of the bar are noi limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts

and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for

discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the tidlure to specify any particular act

of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereopound The commission by a lawyer of an act that is

unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice whether the act is committed in the course of the

attornevs relations as an anornev or otherwise whether committed within or outside the state of

Florida and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor mas constitute a cause for

discipline] 4-14(a)[A lawy er shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a

matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information] 4-14(b) [A lawyer shall

explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed

decisions regarding the representationJ 4-L5(f)(1) [As to contingent fees (1) A fee may be

contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered except in a matter in

which a contingent fee is prohibited by subdivision (f)(3) or by km A contingent fee agreement

shall be in urizinu and shall state the method bv which the fee is to be determined includinu the

percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the lawyer in the ev eni of settlement trial or

appeal litigation and other expenses to he deducted from the recovery and whether such

expenses are to be deducted before or after the contingent fee is calculated I pon conclusion of

a contingent fee matter the law yer shall prov ide the client with a wrinen statement statine the

outcome of the maner and iithere is a recos ett showine the remittance to the client and the

method of its determination] 4-15(f)(5) [As to continuent fees In the ev ent there is a

recovery upon the conclusion of the represemation the law yer shall prepare a closing statement

reilectinu an itemization of all costs and expenses touether with the amount of Ice received by

each participating lawyer or law tirm A copy of the closing statement shall be executed by all

par icipating law yers as well as the client and each shall receive a copy Each participating

laugter shall retain a copy of the uriiten fee contract and closing statement lor 6 y ears aller

execution of the closine statement Am continuent fee contract and closine statement shall be

av allable for inspection at reasonable times by the client by any other person upon judicial

order or by the appropriate disciplinary agency| 4-17(a) [A lawyer shall noi represent a client

if the representation of that client w ill be directly adverse to the interests of anoiber client

unless ta) the lawver reasonabb believen the represemation uill not adversely affect the

lawyers responsibilities to and relationship with the other client and (2gt each client consents

alier consultation) 4-17(h) [ A lauy er shall not represent a cliem if the lauy ers exercise 01

independent professional judgment in the represemation of that client may be materially limited

bv the lauv ers responsibilities to another cliem or to a third person or by the law yers own

interest unless (1) the lawver reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely

6

affected and (2) the client consents atier consultationd 4-17(e) |When representation of

multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken the consultation shall include explanation of the

implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involvedd 4-18(g) thorn

lawyer who represents 2 or more cliems shall not paracipate m making an aggregate settlement

of the claims of or against the clients or in a criminal case an aggregated agreement as to guilty

or nolo contendere pleas unless each client consents aller consuhation includine disclosure of

the existence and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and of the participation of each

person in the settlement| 4-84(a) thorn laugter shall not violate or attempt to v iolate the Rules 01

Professional Conduct know ingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the acts of

another| 4-84(c) thorn lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty fraud deceit or

misrepresentation except that it shall not be professional misconduct lor a lawyer for a criminal

lau enforcement agency or regulatory agency to advise others about or to superv ise another in an

undercov er invesligation unless prohibited by lau or rule and it shall not be a professional

misconduct for a law yer employed in a capacity other than as a lau v er bv a criminal lau

enforcement agency or regulatory agency to participate in an undercov er iniestigation unless

prohibited by law or ruled and 5-1l(f) |l)isputed Ownership of Trust Funds When in the

course of representation a lawyer is in possession of property in which both the law yer and

another person claim interests the property shall be treated by the law y er as trust property but

the portion belonging to the laugter or law lirm shall be withdrawn w ithin a reasonable time alier

it becomes due unless the right of the lauyer or lau firm to recene it is disputed in uhich event

the portion in dispute shall be kept separate by the lawy er until the dispute is resolved|

Lhese acts if they occurred as alleged would impair the conlidence of the citizens of this

Niate in the integrity of the judicial system and in you as a judge would constitute a violation of

the Preamble and Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduet w ould constitute conduct unbecomine

a member of the judiciary unuld demonstrate y our unuumltness to hold the office ofjudge and

would warrant discipline includinu but not limited to tour removal from ohice and or anv

other appropriate discipline recommended by the Florida Judicial Qualintildeeations Commission

You are herebv notilled of voor riuht to lile a written answer to the abo e charues made

against y ou uithin tuen13 lt20) day s of serv ice of this notice upon y ou

1)ATI I) this 24th day of Julv 2013

Respectfully submitted

F1 ORll)A Jl 1)lCIA1 Qt Al1FlCAT10NS CONINilSSION

NIICl lAl 1 l SCHNEll)ER 1 SQ N1111 S A leGRANE Ill ESQ General Counsel TEacutelE N1e(iRANE EAV l IR1 Florida Bar No 525049 Special Counsel 1110 Thomasville Road Florida Bar No 201146 Tallahassee Florida 32303 One 1)atran Center Suite 1500 (850) 488-1581 9100 South 1)adeland Boulev ard

Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003

CERTIFICATE OF SERV ICE

I IlER] BY ( ERTll Y that a true and correct com of the foreuoine NOTICE OF

FORMAL CHARGES has been furnished bv I mail and [ S mail to PE 1 ER R GOEDN1AN

ESQ Broad and Cassel ppdmmu1_a_hnudanaem cem One Financial Plaa 100 SE Third

Avenue Suite 2700 Fort Eauderdale 1 1 33394 attornes for 1he 1Ionorable 1aura Marie

Vatson this 24 dav of Julv Jul 3

|ll

Attornev

8


2 The Plaintiff STEWART TILGHMAN FOX amp BIANCHI PA (STFB) is a

professional association of attorneys practicing law in the State of Florida with its principal place

of business being in Miami-Dade County Florida

3 The Plaintiff TODD S STEWART PA is a professional association practicing

law in the State of Florida with its principal place of business being in Palm Beach County

Florida

4 The Plaintiff WILLIAM C HEARON PA is a professional association

practicing law in the State of Florida with its principal place of business being in Miami-Dade

County Florida

5 The Defendant MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA is a professional association

practicing law in the State of Florida with its principal place of business being in Broward

County Florida

6 The Defendant KANE amp KANE is a Florida general partnership practicing law

in the State of Florida with its principal place of business being in Palm Beach County Florida

The Defendants CHARLES J KANE and HARLEY N KANE are equal partners in said

partnership

7 The Defendant LAURA M WATSON PA is a professional association doing

business as WATSON amp Lentner and practicing law in the State of Florida with its principal

place ofbusiness being in Broward County Florida

8 The Defendants GARY H MARKS AMIR FLEISCHER CHARLES J KANE

HARLEY N KANE LAURA M WATSON and DARIN J LENTNER are attomeys at law





Florida










































Plaintiffs














accepted that trust
























pending case



Stewart v Marks











productions


































Stewart v Marks

















accrue





































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8





Florida










































Plaintiffs














accepted that trust
























pending case



Stewart v Marks











productions


































Stewart v Marks

















accrue





































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8


























Plaintiffs














accepted that trust
























pending case



Stewart v Marks











productions


































Stewart v Marks

















accrue





































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8




Plaintiffs














accepted that trust
























pending case



Stewart v Marks











productions


































Stewart v Marks

















accrue





































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8




















pending case



Stewart v Marks











productions


































Stewart v Marks

















accrue





































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8

Stewart v Marks











productions


































Stewart v Marks

















accrue





































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8























Stewart v Marks

















accrue





































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8

Stewart v Marks

















accrue





































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8


































themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8














themselves thereby













just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8






just



reference






















to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8










to disclose







claims




















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8

















their costs




fair and just










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8










R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8





R R 1Ri] frac14 v


e lI n bic I ora Lu

1

(

r I

] | 1 [ L 1

r n1a in

| I | - -

I

4

l -

-

-

- 5

l

1 4h

- | 1

A it

mu t

4 1

s flcr

u1

lr

itcJ Eacute l

tnit-1

tr sd

n Ru

-

e

s - )

Exhibit B







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8







































attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8
















attornevs






claim attornevs







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8







release such claims






















escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8






escrow









































6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8
























6


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8


































Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8











Sliami 1 lorida 33156 1305 ) 374-0003







|ll

Attornev

8

SC13-1333 Third Amended Complaint

Documents