May 13, 2012

Regarding Philip R. Klein and his New Attorneys

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. In my opinion, the unethical behavior detailed below doesn’t reflect well on Reaud & Associates.

May 12, 2012

Mr. George Michael Jamail
Reaud & Associates, P.C.
801 Laurel Street
P.O. Box 26005
Beaumont, Texas 77720-6005

RE: Cause No. E-184,784; PRK Enterprises, Inc. v. Google, Inc.; in the 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.
Sent by telecopier to 409-813-1325.

Dear Mr. Jamail:

According to Ms. Susan Truss of the 172nd District Court during my telephone conversation with her on May 11, 2012, some time in the last two weeks, someone telephoned the court, claimed to be calling from my office, and changed the hearing I set on my clients’ motion to modify the judgment from 2:00 PM on May 11, 2012, to 8:30 AM on May 11, 2012.

Ms. Truss assures me that she would not have made such a change unless the person requesting it represented that he was affiliated with my firm. Since no one from my office made any such call—and since you were the only attorney to appear at 8:30 AM yesterday—the person who impersonated me for the purpose of thwarting the hearing I set two weeks ago appears to have been you.

Furthermore, after appearing for the 8:30 AM hearing you unilaterally and secretly rescheduled (which obviously could not be held in the absence of the six other pro se parties and attorneys whom you never notified of it), you did not even make a courtesy telephone call to my office to save me the unnecessary trip from Houston to the 172nd District Court in Beaumont for a 2:00 PM hearing—even though you would have realized at that point that notice of the 8:30 AM hearing time had never been filed or served. Thus, it is impossible to conclude that this was a mere oversight. Instead, it appears to have been a deliberate and calculated stalling tactic.

I am almost without words to express my reaction to these revelations, except to say that the ethical bankruptcy manifested by such conduct is matched only by its presumptuousness. It is further pomposified by the fact that no motion to substitute you or your firm as counsel for petitioners has ever been granted (or even filed), no designation of new lead counsel appears of record, and no notice of appearance by you or your firm was filed until three hours after yesterday’s nevernoticed, improperly-rescheduled 8:30 AM hearing (and then only because the court telephoned you and ordered you to do it).

Although a complete legal stranger to these proceedings in every material respect, you simply declared yourself to be “the new sheriff in town” and started changing hearing settings on another attorney’s motion behind his back. If this is an example of carrying out your veiled threat to “do what it is I do” if my clients did not bend to your will, then we are not impressed.

I intend to bring your highly improper actions to the attention of Judge Floyd, although I suspect that his staff members have already done so. Please tell me why I should not also bring them to the attention of the State Bar with a request to discipline you.

Yours very truly,
Jeffrey L. Dorrell
Readers may remember that we changed the date of the original hearing from April 20th to April 27th after Jamail contacted our attorney requesting more time. We rescheduled again from April 27 to May 11 to give Jamail and Reaud time to secure an agreement with Philip R. Klein.

After submitting our demands, Jamail told our attorney that Philip had signed the agreement. Unfortunately, we've yet to see a signed agreement, so our attorney intended to argue our motion for sanctions during the May 11th hearing.

As a result of this highly unethical behavior, our attorney has reset the hearing for June 1 at 9:45.

Here are the pertinent documents:
Any questions?

Here’s a funny anecdote:
after I posted Michael Jamail’s letter to our attorney, Jamail called and complained. According to his statements to Jeffrey, Michael doesn’t have a computer, doesn’t know how to use one, and another attorney had to fax him a copy of my article. Apparently, Michael is more comfortable with technology from the last century.