Preview
1 WILLIAM CARLOS LEET (SBN: 184845)
wcl@leetlaw.com
2 PETER DELVECCHIO (SBN: 183456)
pmd@leetlaw.com
3 LEET LAW, an ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEYS
210 North Fourth Street, Suite 201
4 San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: (408) 753-5486
5 Fax: (408) 295-5799
6 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant,
7 William Carlos Leet
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
10
11 JEFFREY F. RYAN Case No. 21-CIV-04391
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF WILLIAM
13 CARLOS LEET IN SUPPORT OF
v. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF-
14 COUNTERDEFENDANT’S MOTION
WILLIAM CARLOS LEET, et al., FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR,
15
IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
Defendant. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
16
(C.C.P. §437; CRC, Rule 3/1350.)
17
Date: June 13, 2023
18
Time: 2:00 p.m.
19 Dept: Dept. 4
20 Assigned for All Purposes to Hon.
Nancy L. Fineman, Dept. 4
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION1TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ
1
I, WILLIAM CARLOS LEET, declare:
2
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
3
California. I am lead counsel and founder of Leet Law, an Association of Attorneys, counsel of
4
record for all Defendants/Cross-Complainants herein.
5
6 2. Cross-Defendant Jeffrey F. Ryan (“Ryan”) Prior to this action, Cross-Defendant Jeffrey
7 F. Ryan (“Ryan”) and I had enjoyed a productive working relationship of about 23 years. We were law
8 partners in the firm of Olimpia, Whelan, Lively and Ryan from 2000 -2005 and, while there, Ryan and I
9 generated matters that yielded multi-million dollar settlements. We stayed in touch over the following
10 years, shared office space for a time and periodically referred to cases to each other.
11 3. On or about June 28, 2017, Plaintiff Fred Geisler and several others filed a
12 complex, 57-page complaint asserting 13 causes of action, including fraud and fiduciary breach,
13 and seeking millions in damages, against numerous individual and entity defendants in San
14 Mateo County Superior Court (the “Geisler Action”). By early February 2019, Plaintiffs were
15
on their Fourth Amended Complaint after repeated demurrers and motions to strike.
16
4. During the fall of 2018, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Jeffrey Ryan informed me
17
that he had been suspended from the practice of law for 90 days in the case of In re Jeffrey F.
18
Ryan on Discipline, State Bar Court Case No. 14-O-06405. During his suspension, Ryan asked
19
me to handle several of his active files. In late February or early March 2019, Ryan asked me to
20
associate into the Geisler Action as co-counsel on a straight contingent fee basis.
21
5. Based on past experience, I have a personal rule against working on a straight
22
contingency basis unless I believe it to be more likely than not that the case will yield at least 2
23
to 3 times what I would earn on an hourly basis. Adding to my unwillingness in this regard was
24
the fact that an attorney already working with Ryan on the case, Jennifer Hagan (“Hagan”), was
25
unwilling to convert from a half-hourly, half-contingency basis, which was part of the reason
26
Ryan told me he was looking for co-counsel.
27
28
6. During the week of March 8, 2019, Ryan and I discussed the basic terms of the
LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION2TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ
1
arrangement Ryan was proposing. It is within this context that we reduced to writing our
2
agreement regarding how fees would be split. That written agreement, the Leet-Ryan Agreement,
3
was set forth in a series of emails:
4
7. On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 4:45 p.m., Ryan emailed me:
5
Carlos: You should prepare an association of counsel form on Geisler associating in
6
with my firm as counsel for the 4 plaintiffs. Then you can sign the opposition to the
7
TeDan demurrer. Jeff
8 A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit A.
9
8. On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:21 p.m., I responded, attaching an appearance
10
of counsel form:
11
Here ya go. Are you putting together a new retainer agreement with the clients that
12 specifies it is a contingent fee split between more than one firm? I know you do this
all the time—but that’s what I recall from the last time I did one.
13
14 A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit B (emphasis
15 added).
16
9. At 4:54 p.m. on March 11, 2019, Ryan responded:
17
Yes. It is done. It lists the fee as 1/3 up to 120 days before trial and then 40%
18 thereafter. It specially lists our agreement of the fee split between your firm and mine
(you get 1/3 of the fee and I get 2/3). Jeff
19
Ryan said nothing about the enormous client lien. A true and correct copy of this email is
20
submitted with this declaration as Exhibit C (emphasis added).
21
22 10. At 5:06 p.m. on March 11, 2019, 12 minutes later, I wrote:
23 Okay thanks. I will take it from that there are no other liens, advanced costs or
anything else in front of us.
24
A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit D (emphasis
25
added).
26
11. Ryan responded at 5:27 p.m.:
27
28
LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION3TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ
1 Dr. Geisler paid all costs and fees due along the way (although fees were at half
hourly rate). So we went from a 20% contingent fee to 33.33% to 40% 120 days
2 before trial fee but we no longer get paid fees at half hourly rate.
3 The only lien is Jennifer [Hagan] gets paid the other half of her hourly rate when I
get paid out of a settlement. Her current lien is for $200,000 and her work ends as
4 soon as you are up to speed and ready to replace her. Misasha [another attorney on
the case] will continue to work on the case at 100/hour and the client will pay her that
5 amount.
6
As for Jennifer’s lien, I suggest we split it 50/50 as we both benefited from her work
7
on the case.
A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit E (emphasis
8
added).
9
10
12. Ryan’s statement that the “only lien” against the contingent fee proceeds was for
11 Hagan’s fees was a flat-out misrepresentation, as Ryan certainly knew. Ten days earlier, Ryan
12 had entered into an “Attorney-Client Fee Agreement” with the Geisler clients (the “Geisler
13 Agreement”) that included the following:
14 Clients will be given a credit against any fees owed under this agreement for amounts
Clients have paid through April 30, 2019, to Attorney [defined in the agreement as
15 Ryan] or any other attorney or paralegal who has billed on this case through that date.
16 A true and correct copy of the Geisler Agreement is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit F.
17 13. Ryan now asserts that the amount of the undisclosed client lien is roughly
18 $650,000.
19 14. Responding to Ryan’s suggestion that he and I should split Hagan’s $200,000
20 lien, at 5:49 on March 11, 2019, I wrote:
21
I’m not seeing it that way on Jennifer’s lien. That’s also a big factor to not bring
22 up until now. I’m willing to move forward on the 1/3 2/3 split, but not if there is a
$200k lien in front of it. Carlos
23
A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit G (emphasis added).
24
15. Given my unwillingness to agree to subordinate my share of fees to a $200,000
25
lien, Ryan must certainly have known that I would never agree to get in line behind an additional
26
$650,000 lien, for a total of $850,000. Having already inked the deal with his clients, however,
27
and needing my assistance and expertise, Ryan let his misrepresentation stand and said nothing
28
LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION4TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ
1
about the huge client lien. Instead, he responded that he would pay Hagan’s lien from his 2/3
2
share of any fee but added that he did not think this was fair insofar as, according to Ryan, I
3
would have the benefit of work done to date, and would “just have to help push it across the
4
finish line.” A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
5
After reflecting on the “fairness” of Ryan paying the entire Hagan lien, and unaware of
6
Ryan’s deception, I responded at 6:13 on March 11, 2019:
7
8 Jeff,
9 I’ll tell you what: I know you think this case will produce—I just don’t know it well
enough to make that call yet. On the other hand, if it’s all it’s cracked up to be, I don’t
10 want to overreach. Here’s what I propose: If my share exceeds $500k, I will reimburse
you for $20k of Jennifer’s lien for every $100k after that to a max of $66k. So, if my
11 share ends up hitting or exceeding $900k, I will end up reimbursing you for 1/3 of
Jennifer’s current lien, which I think is a more appropriate split, based on our 1/3--2/3
12 division.
13 To be perfectly clear, if my share is $550k, there is no reimbursement. If it is $601K,
there is a $20k reimbursement, if it is $701k, there is a $40k reimbursement, and so
14 on up to $66k. Fair?
15
Carlos
16
A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit I (emphasis added).
17
16. Ryan responded simply, “Fairer.” A true and correct copy of this email is
18
submitted with this declaration as Exhitib J. By email of April 2, 2019, Ryan confirmed that the
19
terms set forth in my 6:13 p.m. email of March 11, 2019 accurately described the parties’
20
agreement regarding fees earned in the Geisler Action. A true and correct copy of this email is
21
22
submitted with this declaration as Exhibit K.
23 17. My work on the Geisler Action was always timely and competently performed.
24 Ryan’s assertions that I somehow “abandoned” the case or otherwise failed to perform are
25 baseless and unsupported in the record. My work included research, writing, opposing, and
26 arguing motions in court, including several demurrers, motions to strike, motions for summary
27 judgment. My work was constant from the day I appeared in the action to the eve of trial—
28 including opposing motions in limine and writing one of the three trial briefs just weeks before
LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION5TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ
1
the trial date. 1 I also wrote mediation briefs related to the mediation that occurred after the original
2
trial date, and even wrote the mediator’s proposal that ended up being the basis for the settlement
3
that was ultimately achieved with the most financially viable defendants in that case. I reviewed
4
and organized evidence and coordinated with experts. I received many compliments on his work,
5
including from Ryan, and no substantive criticisms. After my appearance as counsel of record,
6
there were few things done on the file that I did not have some part in.
7
18. The Geisler file is extraordinary in size and scope. It occupies more than a terabyte
8
of disk space – I actually had to upgrade my computer system specifically to handle the file. More
9
10
than 3,000 emails were exchanged on the case, all of which I had to review. My usual hourly rate
11 is $400 per hour. I estimate my billable time on the file is between $250,000 and $300,000, which
12 Ryan knew and did not dispute prior to the filing of this claim.
13 19. Ryan never provided me with a copy of the Geisler Agreement and, throughout
14 our time working together on the case, never once mentioned the $650,000 client lien. Ryan did
15 not provide a copy of or accurately disclose the terms of the Geisler Agreement—specifically, the
16 existence of the $650,000 client credit—to me until after I emailed him on August 3, 2021, to
17 inquire about a docket entry in the Geisler Action regarding a tentative settlement. I immediately
18 protested to that lien in the ensuing email correspondence, which will be presented at trial but is
19 beyond the scope of this Motion.
20 20. As of the filing of my Verified Cross Complaint (the “VCC”) on September 15,
21
2021, four of the Geisler defendants had settled for a combined total of $3,004,999 to be paid
22
over a five-year period. The Geisler Court approved the good faith settlements of these
23
defendants, and the first settlement payment of $750,000 was made on October 6, 2021. The total
24
gross contingent fee is equal to 40% of the net settlement. Ryan has paid me $100,000, but still
25
26 1
It is important to note that due to COVID-19 the trial did not commence until many months
27 after the initial trial date. When it did finally commence, the only event that occurred prior to this
dispute was the partial, remote, direct examination of Plaintiff, Fred Geisler. Ryan did not
28 request any assistance from me related to that direct examination.
LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION6TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ
1
insists that any payment to me must be subordinated to the $650,000 client credit. Ryan still owes
2
me more than $300,000.
3
21. Ryan commenced this action by filing his complaint against me on August 17,
4
2021. I filed my VCC on September 15, 2021. The VCC stated claims for: (1) fraudulent
5
misrepresentation (First Cause of Action); (2) fraudulent concealment (Second Cause of Action);
6
(3) promissory estoppel (Third Cause of Action); (4) anticipatory breach of contract (Fourth
7
Cause of Action); and (5) unfair business practices (Fifth Cause of Action).
8
22. Ryan demurred to all 5 of the VCC’s causes of action on November 19, 2021. On
9
10
February 15, 2022, the Court issued a tentative ruling overruling Ryan’s demurrer in toto on the
11 ground that I had sufficiently alleged that Ryan was equitably estopped from raising Cal. Rule of
12 Professional Conduct Rule 1.5.1 as a defense to any of my claims by reason of Ryan’s own fraud.
13 Ryan opted not to contest this tentative ruling, which consequently became the order of the Court
14 (the “Demurrer Order”). A true and correct copy of the Demurrer Order is submitted with this
15 declaration as Exhibit L.
16 23. The Court granted me leave to file an Amended Verified Cross-Complaint (the
17 “AVCC”) on April 18, 2023, and the instant motion was deemed directed to that complaint. The
18 only change between the VCC and AVCC is that, due to events post-dating the VCC, the VCC’s
19 Fourth Cause of Action, for anticipatory breach of contract, has been replaced by a claim for
20 breach of contract.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22
23
foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 23, 2023, at San
24 Jose, California.
25
______________________________
26 William Carlos Leet
27
28
LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION7TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ
Preview
1 WILLIAM CARLOS LEET (SBN: 184845) wcl@leetlaw.com 2 PETER DELVECCHIO (SBN: 183456) pmd@leetlaw.com 3 LEET LAW, an ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEYS 210 North Fourth Street, Suite 201 4 San Jose, CA 95112 Phone: (408) 753-5486 5 Fax: (408) 295-5799 6 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, 7 William Carlos Leet 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 11 JEFFREY F. RYAN Case No. 21-CIV-04391 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF WILLIAM 13 CARLOS LEET IN SUPPORT OF v. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF- 14 COUNTERDEFENDANT’S MOTION WILLIAM CARLOS LEET, et al., FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, 15 IN THE ALTERNATIVE, Defendant. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 16 (C.C.P. §437; CRC, Rule 3/1350.) 17 Date: June 13, 2023 18 Time: 2:00 p.m. 19 Dept: Dept. 4 20 Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Nancy L. Fineman, Dept. 4 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION1TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ 1 I, WILLIAM CARLOS LEET, declare: 2 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of 3 California. I am lead counsel and founder of Leet Law, an Association of Attorneys, counsel of 4 record for all Defendants/Cross-Complainants herein. 5 6 2. Cross-Defendant Jeffrey F. Ryan (“Ryan”) Prior to this action, Cross-Defendant Jeffrey 7 F. Ryan (“Ryan”) and I had enjoyed a productive working relationship of about 23 years. We were law 8 partners in the firm of Olimpia, Whelan, Lively and Ryan from 2000 -2005 and, while there, Ryan and I 9 generated matters that yielded multi-million dollar settlements. We stayed in touch over the following 10 years, shared office space for a time and periodically referred to cases to each other. 11 3. On or about June 28, 2017, Plaintiff Fred Geisler and several others filed a 12 complex, 57-page complaint asserting 13 causes of action, including fraud and fiduciary breach, 13 and seeking millions in damages, against numerous individual and entity defendants in San 14 Mateo County Superior Court (the “Geisler Action”). By early February 2019, Plaintiffs were 15 on their Fourth Amended Complaint after repeated demurrers and motions to strike. 16 4. During the fall of 2018, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Jeffrey Ryan informed me 17 that he had been suspended from the practice of law for 90 days in the case of In re Jeffrey F. 18 Ryan on Discipline, State Bar Court Case No. 14-O-06405. During his suspension, Ryan asked 19 me to handle several of his active files. In late February or early March 2019, Ryan asked me to 20 associate into the Geisler Action as co-counsel on a straight contingent fee basis. 21 5. Based on past experience, I have a personal rule against working on a straight 22 contingency basis unless I believe it to be more likely than not that the case will yield at least 2 23 to 3 times what I would earn on an hourly basis. Adding to my unwillingness in this regard was 24 the fact that an attorney already working with Ryan on the case, Jennifer Hagan (“Hagan”), was 25 unwilling to convert from a half-hourly, half-contingency basis, which was part of the reason 26 Ryan told me he was looking for co-counsel. 27 28 6. During the week of March 8, 2019, Ryan and I discussed the basic terms of the LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION2TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ 1 arrangement Ryan was proposing. It is within this context that we reduced to writing our 2 agreement regarding how fees would be split. That written agreement, the Leet-Ryan Agreement, 3 was set forth in a series of emails: 4 7. On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 4:45 p.m., Ryan emailed me: 5 Carlos: You should prepare an association of counsel form on Geisler associating in 6 with my firm as counsel for the 4 plaintiffs. Then you can sign the opposition to the 7 TeDan demurrer. Jeff 8 A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit A. 9 8. On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:21 p.m., I responded, attaching an appearance 10 of counsel form: 11 Here ya go. Are you putting together a new retainer agreement with the clients that 12 specifies it is a contingent fee split between more than one firm? I know you do this all the time—but that’s what I recall from the last time I did one. 13 14 A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit B (emphasis 15 added). 16 9. At 4:54 p.m. on March 11, 2019, Ryan responded: 17 Yes. It is done. It lists the fee as 1/3 up to 120 days before trial and then 40% 18 thereafter. It specially lists our agreement of the fee split between your firm and mine (you get 1/3 of the fee and I get 2/3). Jeff 19 Ryan said nothing about the enormous client lien. A true and correct copy of this email is 20 submitted with this declaration as Exhibit C (emphasis added). 21 22 10. At 5:06 p.m. on March 11, 2019, 12 minutes later, I wrote: 23 Okay thanks. I will take it from that there are no other liens, advanced costs or anything else in front of us. 24 A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit D (emphasis 25 added). 26 11. Ryan responded at 5:27 p.m.: 27 28 LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION3TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ 1 Dr. Geisler paid all costs and fees due along the way (although fees were at half hourly rate). So we went from a 20% contingent fee to 33.33% to 40% 120 days 2 before trial fee but we no longer get paid fees at half hourly rate. 3 The only lien is Jennifer [Hagan] gets paid the other half of her hourly rate when I get paid out of a settlement. Her current lien is for $200,000 and her work ends as 4 soon as you are up to speed and ready to replace her. Misasha [another attorney on the case] will continue to work on the case at 100/hour and the client will pay her that 5 amount. 6 As for Jennifer’s lien, I suggest we split it 50/50 as we both benefited from her work 7 on the case. A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit E (emphasis 8 added). 9 10 12. Ryan’s statement that the “only lien” against the contingent fee proceeds was for 11 Hagan’s fees was a flat-out misrepresentation, as Ryan certainly knew. Ten days earlier, Ryan 12 had entered into an “Attorney-Client Fee Agreement” with the Geisler clients (the “Geisler 13 Agreement”) that included the following: 14 Clients will be given a credit against any fees owed under this agreement for amounts Clients have paid through April 30, 2019, to Attorney [defined in the agreement as 15 Ryan] or any other attorney or paralegal who has billed on this case through that date. 16 A true and correct copy of the Geisler Agreement is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit F. 17 13. Ryan now asserts that the amount of the undisclosed client lien is roughly 18 $650,000. 19 14. Responding to Ryan’s suggestion that he and I should split Hagan’s $200,000 20 lien, at 5:49 on March 11, 2019, I wrote: 21 I’m not seeing it that way on Jennifer’s lien. That’s also a big factor to not bring 22 up until now. I’m willing to move forward on the 1/3 2/3 split, but not if there is a $200k lien in front of it. Carlos 23 A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit G (emphasis added). 24 15. Given my unwillingness to agree to subordinate my share of fees to a $200,000 25 lien, Ryan must certainly have known that I would never agree to get in line behind an additional 26 $650,000 lien, for a total of $850,000. Having already inked the deal with his clients, however, 27 and needing my assistance and expertise, Ryan let his misrepresentation stand and said nothing 28 LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION4TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ 1 about the huge client lien. Instead, he responded that he would pay Hagan’s lien from his 2/3 2 share of any fee but added that he did not think this was fair insofar as, according to Ryan, I 3 would have the benefit of work done to date, and would “just have to help push it across the 4 finish line.” A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 5 After reflecting on the “fairness” of Ryan paying the entire Hagan lien, and unaware of 6 Ryan’s deception, I responded at 6:13 on March 11, 2019: 7 8 Jeff, 9 I’ll tell you what: I know you think this case will produce—I just don’t know it well enough to make that call yet. On the other hand, if it’s all it’s cracked up to be, I don’t 10 want to overreach. Here’s what I propose: If my share exceeds $500k, I will reimburse you for $20k of Jennifer’s lien for every $100k after that to a max of $66k. So, if my 11 share ends up hitting or exceeding $900k, I will end up reimbursing you for 1/3 of Jennifer’s current lien, which I think is a more appropriate split, based on our 1/3--2/3 12 division. 13 To be perfectly clear, if my share is $550k, there is no reimbursement. If it is $601K, there is a $20k reimbursement, if it is $701k, there is a $40k reimbursement, and so 14 on up to $66k. Fair? 15 Carlos 16 A true and correct copy of this email is submitted with this declaration as Exhibit I (emphasis added). 17 16. Ryan responded simply, “Fairer.” A true and correct copy of this email is 18 submitted with this declaration as Exhitib J. By email of April 2, 2019, Ryan confirmed that the 19 terms set forth in my 6:13 p.m. email of March 11, 2019 accurately described the parties’ 20 agreement regarding fees earned in the Geisler Action. A true and correct copy of this email is 21 22 submitted with this declaration as Exhibit K. 23 17. My work on the Geisler Action was always timely and competently performed. 24 Ryan’s assertions that I somehow “abandoned” the case or otherwise failed to perform are 25 baseless and unsupported in the record. My work included research, writing, opposing, and 26 arguing motions in court, including several demurrers, motions to strike, motions for summary 27 judgment. My work was constant from the day I appeared in the action to the eve of trial— 28 including opposing motions in limine and writing one of the three trial briefs just weeks before LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION5TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ 1 the trial date. 1 I also wrote mediation briefs related to the mediation that occurred after the original 2 trial date, and even wrote the mediator’s proposal that ended up being the basis for the settlement 3 that was ultimately achieved with the most financially viable defendants in that case. I reviewed 4 and organized evidence and coordinated with experts. I received many compliments on his work, 5 including from Ryan, and no substantive criticisms. After my appearance as counsel of record, 6 there were few things done on the file that I did not have some part in. 7 18. The Geisler file is extraordinary in size and scope. It occupies more than a terabyte 8 of disk space – I actually had to upgrade my computer system specifically to handle the file. More 9 10 than 3,000 emails were exchanged on the case, all of which I had to review. My usual hourly rate 11 is $400 per hour. I estimate my billable time on the file is between $250,000 and $300,000, which 12 Ryan knew and did not dispute prior to the filing of this claim. 13 19. Ryan never provided me with a copy of the Geisler Agreement and, throughout 14 our time working together on the case, never once mentioned the $650,000 client lien. Ryan did 15 not provide a copy of or accurately disclose the terms of the Geisler Agreement—specifically, the 16 existence of the $650,000 client credit—to me until after I emailed him on August 3, 2021, to 17 inquire about a docket entry in the Geisler Action regarding a tentative settlement. I immediately 18 protested to that lien in the ensuing email correspondence, which will be presented at trial but is 19 beyond the scope of this Motion. 20 20. As of the filing of my Verified Cross Complaint (the “VCC”) on September 15, 21 2021, four of the Geisler defendants had settled for a combined total of $3,004,999 to be paid 22 over a five-year period. The Geisler Court approved the good faith settlements of these 23 defendants, and the first settlement payment of $750,000 was made on October 6, 2021. The total 24 gross contingent fee is equal to 40% of the net settlement. Ryan has paid me $100,000, but still 25 26 1 It is important to note that due to COVID-19 the trial did not commence until many months 27 after the initial trial date. When it did finally commence, the only event that occurred prior to this dispute was the partial, remote, direct examination of Plaintiff, Fred Geisler. Ryan did not 28 request any assistance from me related to that direct examination. LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION6TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ 1 insists that any payment to me must be subordinated to the $650,000 client credit. Ryan still owes 2 me more than $300,000. 3 21. Ryan commenced this action by filing his complaint against me on August 17, 4 2021. I filed my VCC on September 15, 2021. The VCC stated claims for: (1) fraudulent 5 misrepresentation (First Cause of Action); (2) fraudulent concealment (Second Cause of Action); 6 (3) promissory estoppel (Third Cause of Action); (4) anticipatory breach of contract (Fourth 7 Cause of Action); and (5) unfair business practices (Fifth Cause of Action). 8 22. Ryan demurred to all 5 of the VCC’s causes of action on November 19, 2021. On 9 10 February 15, 2022, the Court issued a tentative ruling overruling Ryan’s demurrer in toto on the 11 ground that I had sufficiently alleged that Ryan was equitably estopped from raising Cal. Rule of 12 Professional Conduct Rule 1.5.1 as a defense to any of my claims by reason of Ryan’s own fraud. 13 Ryan opted not to contest this tentative ruling, which consequently became the order of the Court 14 (the “Demurrer Order”). A true and correct copy of the Demurrer Order is submitted with this 15 declaration as Exhibit L. 16 23. The Court granted me leave to file an Amended Verified Cross-Complaint (the 17 “AVCC”) on April 18, 2023, and the instant motion was deemed directed to that complaint. The 18 only change between the VCC and AVCC is that, due to events post-dating the VCC, the VCC’s 19 Fourth Cause of Action, for anticipatory breach of contract, has been replaced by a claim for 20 breach of contract. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 23 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 23, 2023, at San 24 Jose, California. 25 ______________________________ 26 William Carlos Leet 27 28 LEET DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION7TO PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFEFENDANT’S MSJ