VIII. I Discover My Lawyers’ Misconduct
A. Feb. 2004 – I Discover Certain Misconduct By My Lawyers in MDL No. 1361 and the Ensuing Proceedings
258. It was not until on or around January 26, 2004, that I discovered that Boies-Schiller was representing my interests while simultaneously representing Trans World in a related antitrust action.
259. I discovered this by a search of an Internet website, from which I downloaded an electronic copy of a complaint alleging an antitrust conspiracy involving Trans World and the major recording companies, which is captioned In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation.
260. Upon reading the complaint, I discovered that the antitrust claims were related to my own antitrust claims. Upon reading the docket entries of In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation, I discovered that Boies-Schiller had filed a notice of appearance in the matter, representing the defendant Trans World. I also discovered a final judgment had issued approving settlement of antitrust claims related to my own, which Boies-Schiller had never disclosed to me.
261. Believing now that I was the victim of misconduct by Boies-Schiller, and without the benefit of counsel, I drafted a complaint for violations of antitrust law, alleging my antitrust claims related to the claims that had been settled in In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation, and seeking injunctive relief. I filed my complaint pro se on February 11, 2004.
B. Apr. 2005 – My Lawyers Aid the Unauthorized Practice of Law by a Suspended or Disbarred Attorney
262. I also discovered by an Internet search that Bill Duker had been suspended or disbarred after he pled guilty to charges of fraud. I further discovered that Bill Duker’s law firm of Duker and Barrett was the predecessor firm to Barrett and Gravante, which joined the successor firm of Boies-Schiller.
263. Boies-Schiller never disclosed to me that Bill Duker had been suspended or disbarred from the practice of law.
264. In spite of Bill Duker’s suspension or disbarment from the practice of law, Boies-Schiller aided Bill Duker to hold out the Boies-Schiller offices and facilities to gain access to my confidential documents and information, under the guise of attorney-client privilege, and failed to monitor Bill Duker’s conduct.
265. Boies-Schiller further aided Bill Duker to alter confidential documents or information that I had provided to Boies-Schiller and that Boies-Schiller had prepared for me, and to limit my right to conduct discovery of Trans World.
266. As set forth in David Boies’ letter to me of November 15, 2000, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, David Boies states, “I have contacted Hank Barry by e-mail. When I hear from him I will call you or Bill.”
267. Under the authority of David Boies’ November 15 letter to me and the Boies-Schiller letterhead, David Boies and Boies-Schiller further aided Bill Duker to hold out advice about legal issues involving third-party communications, which require legal skill or knowledge, instead of monitoring Bill Duker’s conduct or calling or talking directly with me. Such aid to Bill Duker continued over several years.
268. In the November 15 letter, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, David Boies also states, “I also understand from Bill that you and he are working to set up a separate consulting firm.”
269. Under the authority of this letter, David Boies and Boies-Schiller routinely aided Bill Duker to hold out his advice about the understanding of setting up legal entities, which is not normally given by a non-lawyer, rather than monitoring Bill Duker’s conduct or taking their understanding from me. Such aid to Bill Duker continued over several years.
270. Under the authority of a Boies-Schiller letter sent from the Boies-Schiller domain, bsfllp.com, Boies-Schiller aided Bill Duker to hold out that Bill Duker has Boies-Schiller’s authority or approval to make promises to me concerning Boies-Schiller’s legal advice and by providing such legal advice at Bill Duker’s direction.
271. Boies-Schiller further aided Bill Duker to hold out demands from me for payment for Boies-Schiller’s provisions of legal advice to me, including demands that I provide customized technology in Bill Duker’s interest in Amici as consideration in return for Boies-Schiller’s provision of legal advice to me.
272. Recently, in April 2005, Boies-Schiller aided Bill Duker to advise me about a legal question that I asked of David Boies.
273. On April 6, 2005, I wrote by email to Bill Duker saying that I intended to send a certain letter directly to David Boies, and I attached the letter I intended to send. The letter sought advice on disclosure of Boies-Schiller’s representation of me, which required legal skill and knowledge not normally given by a non-lawyer.
274. Bill Duker then wrote back to me by email advising me not to exercise my legal right to send the letter directly to my lawyer David Boies, saying: “I wish that you would not.”
275. Referring to David Boies, Bill Duker further advised me, “He did a big favor for you and me.”
276. Thus, Bill Duker advised me on the disclosure of Boies-Schiller’s representation of me, which is advice requiring legal skill and knowledge, while failing to make the full and fair disclosure that I had requested in my letter.
277. In spite of Bill Duker’s advice that I delay in requesting such disclosure, I sent my letter directly and urgently to David Boies. Further, I informed David Boies that I had sent a copy of the letter to Bill Duker by email.
278. David Boies did not remedy Bill Duker’s advice to me and did not reply at all.
279. I then sent a second request, informing David Boies that I had called the Boies-Schiller office to confirm receipt of the first request, and requesting again a disclosure of Boies-Shiller’s representation of me.
280. David Boies again did not remedy Bill Duker’s advice to me and again did not reply to me at all.
C. July 2005 – My Lawyers Perpetrate Fraud Upon This Court in This Very Action
281. In spite of my repeated requests, my lawyers have concealed their conflict of interest arising from their simultaneous representation of Trans World and from their concealed pecuniary interests.
282. The information I have requested is legally required to be revealed, under the Maine Code § 3.4(a).
283. Boies Schiller thus conceals information legally required to be revealed, which is a violation of the Maine Code § 3.7(b).
284. On or around August 2, 2005, the Court entered in the proceedings of my lawsuit, Docket Entry #19, a letter that my Lawyers Boies Schiller submitted to the Court (the “Letter”). In this Letter, Boies Schiller knowingly makes the false statement that “the firm does not currently represent any parties before this Court.”
285. This statement is false. At a minimum, Boies Schiller has represented me in the preparation for my lawsuit before this Court.
286. Boies Schiller also knowingly makes the false statement that “We do not represent Trans World in [my lawsuit]. Trans World is represented by the firms of Nixon Peabody LLP and Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry with regard to those claims.”
287. This statement is also false. Boies Schiller continues to represent Trans World in the preparation for my lawsuit and with regard to my claims, specifically:
a. Bill Duker, who is an agent of Trans World, continued to confer with Boies Schiller about my claims, on or around June 30, 2005 at which time Boies Schiller provided specific information to Bill Duker about my claims and my Motion for Order to Show Cause.
b. In or around June 2005, David Boies and Robert Higgins Chairman of Trans World met in Italy and conferred about my claims.
c. Boies Schiller has not terminated its representation of Trans World and instead continues to represent Trans World on matters that are substantially related to my claims, specifically, the special purpose entities that Boies Schiller, Bill Duker and Trans World have created, including iDeal Ventures LLC, BuddyUSA Inc., AbovePeer Inc., Pi2 Products LLC, Pi2 Inc., Pi3 Inc, Backspin and Amici LLC.
288. Boies Schiller through its Letter to this Court submitted in the course of my lawsuit thus knowingly makes a false statement and conceals information legally required to be revealed, which is a violation of the Maine Code § 3.7(b) and fails to disclose the identities of all the parties the firm represents, in violation of the Maine Code § 3.7(e)(ii).
289. In the alternative, if (as the firm claims) Boies Schiller has not represented Trans World in my lawsuit, then by the actions described in 287 supra, Boies Schiller has “without the informed written consent of the client, knowingly revealed a confidence or secret of the client; used such a confidence or secret to the disadvantage of the client; or used such confidence or secret to the advantage of the lawyer or a third person” and thereby violated Maine Code § 3.6(h)(1).
290. Boies Schiller’s continued concealment of its conflict of interest, now conducted in the course of my lawsuit through its Letter to this Court containing knowingly false statements made before the Court’s eyes, is deliberate misconduct arising in the course of or in the preparation for my lawsuit and a contempt before the Court’s eyes of this Court’s judicial process.
