complaints. At 21.42 mins, Justice Lagoa[1] addressed Bar Counsel, and asserted “There does not need to be any trial court finding or order issued before someone can make a complaint with the Florida Bar, correct? (Gonzalez: “Correct”)…I don’t have to wait for the trial court or an appellate court to make a finding of fact, correct?  (Gonzalez: “That’s correct”).”  Despite agreeing with Judge Lagoa, Bar counsel would continue her incorrect interpretation of the rules; at appx 35 minutes into the video she once again inaccurately says at 35.20 “We’re not going to step into the shoes…” and after bantering with Judge Lagoa… “The Florida Bar is not going to become a litigant for the complainants. We’re not going to influence the court…”   However, Justice/Judge Lagoa already obtained the correct answer from Gonzalez, namely a Bar complaint can be submitted without waiting on any Court decisions. In applying the rules per Florida Supreme Court to the Burkes complaint against Azuero, the Florida Bar does not need to wait for an opinion from the 11^th Circuit appeal nor the judicial complaint re Judge Marra as submitted to the Chief Judge.

II. IT’S BIG LAW, NOT SOLE PRACTITIONER(S)

Azuero admits to being one of at least a dozen Goodwin lawyers of record on the Florida case.[2] It is well known that Goodwin flood staff onto cases to exploit billing and they have been censured and sued for that practice before.[3]

III.  SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY – LAWYERS UNETHICAL OBEDIENCE

A law practice tends to produce excessive obedience.[4] A factor that contributes to obedience is that attorney misbehavior will typically affect victims who are more remote in time and place than the victims in Milgram’s experiments.[5]

This applies in the instant case. Azuero is based in Boston, MA, the court case in Fl., appeal in Georgia and the related cases in Ill. and GA. Meantime the victims, the

Burkes are in Houston, TX. They have not attended a hearing in any of these stated cases – it’s all been paper-driven, remote [in]justice.

For example, the failure to produce a smoking gun document will affect an adverse party, but in a much more indirect way than the application of an electric shock. Similarly, assisting a company’s financial fraud (e.g., the Enron scandal) will primarily harm shareholders and lower level employees, people with whom lawyers have little contact. Because a lawyer will perceive these harms to be less immediate and proximate than someone suffering painful electric shocks in an adjoining room, this factor favors obedience in the lawyering context even more strongly than what Milgram found in many of his experiments.[1]

Azuero is a long-serving lawyer and employee at Goodwin Procter, LLP (“Goodwin”), rising from Associate to Senior Attorney in her 13 years with this ‘big law’ firm in the creditor rights defense legal division of Goodwin (defending banks and nonbanks e.g. Bank of America and Ocwen).  That said, despite 13 years at Goodwin, Azuero has not become a Partner.

The Burkes suggest the case of John Gellene could easily apply to the facts of this complaint. John Gellene, the subject of “Eat What You Kill”, is the only Wall Street bankruptcy lawyer to serve a federal prison term for violating his disclosure obligations under Bankruptcy Rule 2016.[2] Whilst Gellene was a partner, he was not a “rainmaker”, an income producer and so relied upon befriending the new partner and known rainmaker, Larry Lederman to cultivate his relationship with him in order that Lederman would provide Gellene with billable work e.g. cases. However, Gellene would cross the line, commit perjury and violated his disclosure obligations.

Similarly, Azuero is not a “rainmaker” and relies upon her working relationship with her Partners and colleagues at Goodwin to be assigned to cases. That, as Milgram found, favors obedience and as with Gellene, there is more social pressure to ‘win at any cost’. In this case, the victims are the Burkes and Azuero is responsible. She committed perjury[3], withheld evidence and as with Gellene, violated her disclosure obligations. We know what happened to Gellene.[4] Indeed, upon reading the book review by Michael St James, he goes on to say; “The large firm bankruptcy community’s lack of respect for disclosure obligations was exacerbated by the

response from the bankruptcy courts…” and goes on to discuss forum shopping where certain courts would turn a blind eye to non-disclosure by unethical lawyers. This mirrors the Burkes attempted intervention in Florida. It is memorialized in black and white print from the Judge himself. Judge Kenneth A. Marra committed perjury and conspired with both Ocwen and CFPB’s counsel to deny the victims, the Burkes, access to sealed documents for their case(s) in Houston. He stated;

“In addition to the grounds stated in the Court’s Order Denying Intervention (ECF No. 375), the Court notes that intervention is not permitted to allow a party to seek or obtain evidence for other litigation as asserted by the proposed Intervenors. (See ECF No. 408 at 4).” – Doc. 411.

A. The Senior Judge’s statement is untruthful – and so is Azuero’s response: As detailed in the Burkes complaint and in this reply, the Burkes were entitled to seek and obtain evidence for other litigation. The Burkes have proven, based on the record alone and without the benefit of depositions or live testimony, that rogue lawyer Azuero absolutely did know the Judge’s uncorroborated codicil above was legally flawed – as the Greens in Houston had recovered evidence from the Florida case for their own Bankruptcy case in S.D. Tex.[1] Note; Ocwen settled with the Greens in Houston on July 16, 2020. As part of the settlement, Judge Marvin Isgur ordered the sealed transcripts (the evidence) be destroyed or returned to Ocwen.

IV. THE S.D. FL. CASE; CFPB v. OCWEN

A. Bar Memberships, Disclosure and Transparency: It is unconfirmed by Azuero when she states in her response that ‘she was discussing the complaint with “colleagues”’, whether colleagues would include “ethics counsel”[2] and/or whether ethics counsel drafted the response either on her behalf or in tandem with her.

(i)  Bar Memberships: Azuero admits to being a registered member of the Florida Bar and as such would be subject to the Professional Code of Conduct in Florida. She also confirms membership of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Bar. In the Burkes complaint, which Azuero has read and now responded to, the Burkes stated, in part;

“And there’s also former Goodwin lawyer, now law professor, Associate Professor Luke M. Scheuer who previously held adjunct positions at Boston College Law School, the University of Massachusetts School of Law, and Boston University

School of Law and his paper; “Duty to Disclose Lawyer Misconduct” (2010), Available at: https://works.bepress.com/luke_scheuer/2/, wherein he discusses cases like In Re Himmel.

(ii)  Disclosures: Scheuer states; “Some state rule comments give more specific direction on the materiality issue” and then goes on to cite Massachusetts Rule 8.3, comment 3 (Duty to report attorney misconduct). Azuero should be familiar with this higher specificity and materiality, as she admits she is domiciled and works in Boston (as well as being a member of the Massachusetts Bar).

(iii)  Transparency: Scheuer, a former Goodwin lawyer himself, goes on to discuss “[F.] Firm Reporting” and then provides scenarios, including discussing ‘ethics counsel’.[1] See IV.A. above.

B.  Azuero’s Statements, Rebuttals and Denials are Not Authentic:  The Burkes now provide a summary of Azuero’s replies. (1-2) Azuero admits to being a member of the Florida Bar and the Massachusetts Bar. She is domiciled in Boston and works out of Goodwin’s Boston offices on creditor rights lawsuits. She has been employed at Goodwin for 13 years and she holds the position of Senior Attorney. (3) Azuero admits she ‘signed’[2] the opposition to the Burkes Motion to Intervene. (4) Azuero discusses the Burkes 11^th Cir. Appeal. She admits to being listed as a counsel but states ‘I have filed no appearance on appeal’. (5) Azuero questions the Burkes allegations that she ‘committed perjury, made false and untruthful statements’ and that the complaint does not identify such statements[3] or reference those in the motion she signed (Doc. 224). Azuero further states that the only ‘sworn declarations’ she has submitted relate to discovery and are ‘completely unrelated to the Burkes allegations’. (6)  Azuero returns to the 11^th Cir. Appeal and states; (a) She did not write or sign the offending statement or brief (b) admits being listed as counsel (c) states she is counsel ‘along with twelve other additional counsel’ (d) the complaint fails to articulate that ‘any particular statement in the quotation is false’ (e) Azuero then contradicts (a-d) by denying the statement is false and (f) denies she ‘viciously maligned’ the Burkes. (7) Azuero confirms the Burkes allegations – that

she withheld evidence from the Greens case in S.D. Tex. – but claims Goodwin does not represent Ocwen in that action. (8) Azuero baselessly refers to the date of Senior United States District Judge Atlas’s Order (26 Aug. 2020) as her excusable defense. (9) Verbatim (Part I); “While the complaint suggests that I must have known about the Green order, I deny that I knew about the case prior to learning about its citation by the Burkes in the Eleventh Circuit (and, Part II)[1]; And had I known about the case, I do not believe I would have thought I had any obligation to disclose the case or the referenced order to the Burkes.”

C. The Record Shows Azuero is Lying in Her Reply to the Bar : Azuero’s response is ruinous to her integrity. The record confirms she has actually committed more crimes by the blatant lies, lack of candor and remorse in her reply. Let’s list them.

(i)  Azuero’s Notice of Appearance Confirms Her Request for ‘All Papers’: As admitted by Azuero, she joined the civil lawsuit per Doc. 57, Notice of Appearance, dated 22 Feb., 2018, where she requests ‘…copies of ALL PAPERS in this action BE SERVED UPON ME’.[2] This rebuts Azuero’s answer above. See B(9).

(ii)  Azuero’s Docket Activity is Prolific in the Florida Lawsuit: As at October 18, 2020, Azuero has filed into this case 79 times per the docket and also another declaration (filed by another Ocwen attorney, Doc. 195). In total, she’s named on 80 documents in 30 months. Azuero is undoubtedly the most active attorney for Goodwin on this docket and only usurped by the court clerk’s filings in this voluminous ECF record. As important, it should also be noted the majority of these filings are under seal and/or protective order and/or redacted. Where Goodwin and Azuero deemed necessary, she would file requesting such relief from the court, which would generally be granted.

(iii)  Azuero’s Professional Qualifications and Federal Court Experience Defies Her Ignorance of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1): Azuero spends an inordinate amount of time discussing pleadings, signings, sworn declarations, notice of appearance and such. See B.(3), (4), (5), (6) generally, and (7). This is a deliberate smokescreen.  Simply stated, Azuero is held jointly liable for any and all statements by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1) (“If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate

sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.”). Furthermore, addressing B.(4), (6)(a-c), and upon review of the 11^th Circuit website, it instructs attorney’s “To File a Web-Based Certificate of Interested Persons: All attorneys are required to complete the web-based CIP.” See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1(b)[1] and R. 28-1(b). In summary, whether or not Azuero filed a Notice of Appearance, wrote the offending statements in the brief or signed the brief is immaterial to the ethics complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Azuero is held personally liable.

(iv)  The Greens – Azuero’s Scandalous Statement: Azuero’s first statement in B.(9) can be swiftly discredited. All you need to do is read the following – it speaks for itself; Below is an extract of the Joint Case Discovery and Management Plan, (Doc. 9, p. 5, (Jan. 1, 2019) – Case #18-03351, S.D. Tex. (Bankruptcy)).

“A copy of the CFPB Complaint, Docket sheet, and contact information for Ocwen’s counsel in the CFPB litigation has been provided to Mr. Curran, Ocwen’s counsel in this adversary proceeding.”

(v)  The Date of Judge Nancy Atlas’s Order: Azuero, clutching at straws, implies the date of the order, Aug. 26, 2019, relieves her of any liability as to knowledge of the Greens and the evidence they received from Ocwen in the instant Florida case. Incorrect. The adversary proceedings by the Greens commenced in Nov. 26, 2018 and Ocwen were on notice from that date of the allegations in their complaint and Greens reliance on the CFPB v. Ocwen case in Florida.

(vi)  The Missing Documents and Premeditated Answers: Azuero’s coached response, which excludes key documents filed by the Burkes and omits to recognize the Burkes material statements and answers therein, mirrors the complaints the Burkes expressed in motions to the lower court and in their Brief(s) filed on appeal.[2] This violates the Professional Rules of Conduct.

SUMMARY (CFPB v. OCWEN, FL.): Unlike Azuero, the Burkes have provided documented facts, not falsehoods in their complaint and response, proving beyond a reasonable doubt Azuero is guilty of professional misconduct. That said, the Burkes are limited in their reply due to the sheer volume of docket filings under lock and

key in the Fl. case and also the relevant filings in the Greens case in S.D. Tex. Certainly, interviewing counsel for the Greens and Ocwen in Texas would confirm C.(iv) above, namely that Azuero did know about the Greens case during the Burkes intervention in Fl.

V. THE ILL. AND GA CASES; COOK/COBB v. BANK OF AMERICA

A. Azuero Deflects: In Azuero’s response, pages 1-2[1] focuses on the Florida case. From pages 2-5[2] she focuses on the Bank of America case(s) in Illinois and Georgia. Finally, from 5-7 she focuses on listing the Burkes related cases, Bar and Judicial complaints – all of which the Burkes have fully disclosed.

(i)  Bank of America Cases: Azuero admits ‘she is familiar with the filings in both these cases’ (point 10, p.2 of her reply) and claims again (see IV.(b)(5) above) deficient complaint by the Burkes; Point 10: States the Burkes are not parties to these cases; Points 11/12: Distancing herself from the case(s); Point 13: Decrying specificity and falsehoods undetermined; Points 14/19: She discusses withdrawal  and hot potato (doctrine); Point 15-17: Confirming court actions; Point 18: Azuero denies direct involvement, or any improper conduct and then makes hearsay statements; Point 20: Hot potato denials based on her hearsay ‘beliefs’.

(ii)  I’m on the Case, But I am Not Responsible: Azuero’s arguments mirror what’s already been discussed in the Fl. case. She does not take responsibility for her own actions. This contravenes federal laws and conduct rules. After distancing herself[3], she then proceeds to deny any and all allegations, makes hearsay statements and generally contradicts herself. It’s a shambolic defense which woefully fails to answer her misconduct and attempts to push these claims onto other Goodwin team lawyers.

(iii)  You Do Not Need to Be a Party: Point 10, p.2 is not relevant to filing a Bar complaint.[4] Anyone can file a complaint and they do not need to be a party.[5] See “You do not have to be a client to file a grievance. Anyone can report allegations of professional misconduct or problems with a lawyer.” – State Bar of Texas.[6]

(iv)  Threatening a Bar Complaint: Point 18, p.5, in part; “So far as I know, no bar complaint has been filed against me by any of the counties.” The Burkes have already stated that the Bar(s) have not followed their own rules, including the Fl. Bar counsel’s misguided interpretation of the rules before Justice Lagoa. The Burkes can only assume this is based on the Florida Bar’s Ethics Opinion 94-5 (1995), which disavows lawyers from ‘threatening’ bar complaints.[1] However, ethics opinions are not binding on the courts and was not supported by a later Fl. case.[2]

(iv)  The Burkes Purpose in Referencing these ‘Related’ Bank of America Cases: Azuero is deflecting the real reasons for the Burkes inclusion of these two related cases. It shows the same team of Goodwin lawyers who are listed of counsel in the ongoing CFPB v. Ocwen case acting unethically in the two  ongoing Bank of America cases.[3] It shows ongoing and repetitive misconduct by these big law firm lawyers and that includes Azuero. The Burkes have disclosed they disagree with the opinion of the Illinois in the sanctions motions and order by the magistrate judge. As stated, a Bar complaint is not defined nor should it rely upon this erroneous court judgment.[4] Goodwin breached the ethics rules by abandoning witnesses (clients).[5]

SUMMARY (BANK OF AMERICA CASES, ILL. & GA.): Azuero cannot shirk her misconduct. The fact she did not self-report her failure to disclose or report her ‘colleagues’ for their misconduct is sufficient to warrant disbarment.[6]

CONCLUSION

It is true: The Burkes are complaining to the relevant state bars about Goodwin’s team of lawyers and federal judicial complaint about a judge on the case. That is how the system is set up by the federal Courts, the State(s) Supreme Courts and Bars. As such, the Burkes are only adhering to the process and should not be slighted – as they have been – for invoking their legal rights in their quest to ensure these rogue

lawyers are held accountable for their malicious behavior, perjurious statements, incl. conspiring to withhold evidence and misconduct as stated herein.

In conclusion: Azuero’s answers in regards the Florida case are not authentic, she has not shown candor to the Bar in her reply, e.g. admission of her unassailable guilt or remorse for her misconduct. As such, it makes her responses in the two Bank of America cases unbelievable, tarnishing her diminishing reputation further. The Burkes return to III. above; unethical obedience is rife in law firms.  It is obvious, the remote distance from the victims, the Burkes, has made it acceptable – in Azuero’s mendacious plan – for her to commit inexcusable code violations to deny the Burkes rights to a fair hearing, incl. access to important documents. It may be claimed Azuero could be a victim herself, controlled by her creditor rights team Partner(s) like Thomas Hefferon, a 25 year Goodwin veteran. Nevertheless, as with John Gellene, she should be held accountable for her own greed, perjury, bad faith[1], contempt and conspiracy against her victims, the elder Burkes, her own material omissions (incl. concealing evidence)[2] and misrepresentations, including failure to disclose and report the patent misconduct and rule violations by her colleagues.

The Burkes are litigating nationwide to keep their homestead from wrongful foreclosure and a roof over their heads. As such, Azuero’s premeditated acts prevented the Burkes from obtaining documents to which they were entitled.[3] This in turn has further extended litigation and now includes Bar complaint(s). The Burkes have been materially affected, both financially and by increased mental anguish. This should significantly enhance her misconduct and ethical violations to include aggravated abuse of elderly person(s). The Burkes are fully aware no compensation is recoverable, but Azuero’s reply has shown she is a very willing participant, a key player in the deceit and deception perpetrated against the elder Burkes. She is part of this big law firm’s nationwide and ongoing illegal schemes to ‘win at any and all costs’, and the Burkes would suggest, denigrating the Fl. Bar’s Professional Code of Conduct for lawyers. Disbarment[4] is wholly warranted, and should be decreed in this complaint, in the matter of Catalina E. Azuero.

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar

October 10, 2020

Page 2

5.  The complaint states (at 3) that I committed perjury in the CFPB v. Ocwen And while the complaint states (at 6) that my filings and statements in the proceeding were “false and untruthful,” it does not identify any such statements.

The statement quoted on page 6 of the complaint as allegedly false did not appear in the joint Ocwen/CFPB opposition to the motion to intervene, which I signed.

Indeed, the only sworn declarations I have submitted have been related to the discovery process in the Bureau case, completely unrelated to the Burke’s allegations.

6. The statement quoted on page 6 of the complaint and alleged to be false appears in the introduction to the Ocwen brief as appellee in the Eleventh Circuit (filed March 11, 2020).

I did not write that statement or sign that brief, although my name (misspelled “Aquero” ) appears as an additional counsel {along with twelve other additional counsel} on that brief.

The complaint does not explain, much less demonstrate, that any particular statement in the quotation is false, and I deny that any statement is false.

I further deny that the quoted statement ” viciously maligned” the Burkes, as opposed to fairly introducing Ocwen’s arguments.

7.  The complaint also alleges (at 3, 4-6) that I improperly withheld from the Burkes an order, which the Burkes cite (at S) as “Green Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Bankruptcy No. 12-38016 (13) (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019)”.

The correct citation is Green v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Ch. 13 Case No. 12-bk-38016, Adv. No. 18-3351 (Bank S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019).

The complaint states (at 4) that the Green order “allowed the Greens to retain access to ‘discovery’ documents as evidence for their own case against Ocwen.”

I believe that the implication is that the same or similar documents might have been obtainable through the Burke’s intervention and thus that the Green order would have been useful in the Burkes’ separate lawsuit against Ocwen. Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 2018-82450 (Tex. 55^{t h} Jud. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), dismissed after removal, No. 4:18-cv-4544 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2019), appeal docketed, No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. April 22, 2019).

As stated above, Goodwin does not represent Ocwen in that action.

8. While the complaint implies that withholding that order would have been violation of the applicable ethical rules, the order came down after the district court denied the motion for intervention, and the Burkes themselves cited the Green order in their reply brief on appeal in the Eleventh Burkes Reply Brief (filed June 10, 2020) (at 19-20).

9.  While the complaint suggests that l must have known about the Green order, I deny that I knew about the case prior to learning about its citation by the Burkes in the Eleventh Circuit. And had I known about the case, I do not believe I would have thought I had any obligation to disclose the case or the referenced order to the Burkes.

10. The complaint also alleges (at 7-11) that Goodwin and I acted unethically with respect to certain witnesses in two cases brought by counties in Illinois and Georgia alleging that the Bank of America and related entities violated the Fair Housing Act: County of Cook v. Bank of America, 14-cv- 2280 (N.D. Ill.), and Cobb County v. Bank of America Corp., No. 15-cv-04081 (N.D. Ga.). Goodwin

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar

October 10, 2020

Page 3

represents the Bank of America entities in those proceedings, and I appeared in the County of Cook case.

I am familiar with the filings in both cases. The same counsel represented the counties in the two cases.

The Burkes are neither parties nor movants for intervention in either proceeding.

11.  As the complaint states, eleven of the counties’ witnesses, whose statements were referred to and relied upon in the counties’ complaints, were former Bank of America employees, five of whom had given the counties’ lawyers sworn I was in not  directly involved in the process of obtaining the sworn declarations from any of the witnesses, as that was done by my colleagues.

The Cook County case is large, complex, and required a large team running separate parts of the case. My understanding from speaking to my colleagues is that after obtaining the statements, Goodwin offered to represent the witnesses in the event that the counties deposed them and that they accepted.

12.  The plaintiff counties moved to disqualify Goodwin from representing the witnesses and the bank and for various sanctions, supported by an affidavit from Professor Roy Simon of New York¹

Goodwin opposed the motions,² supported by sworn declarations from a responsible partner3; other declarations from the Goodwin associate who had virtually all of the contacts with witnesses⁴; and by declarations from respected ethics authorities: Steven F. Pflaum in the County of Cook case and Professor Patrick E. Longan in the Cobb County case.⁵

The declarations of the Goodwin associate explained in detail the disclosures he had made to the witnesses both at the time the statements were obtained and at the time that Goodwin representation was offered and finalized.

The two experts both concluded that Goodwin had acted properly in its dealings with the witnesses.

13. The Burkes’ complain t, in complaining about my alleged conduct and Goodwin’s, does not specify any statement of mine or any statement in Goodwin’s filings that it claims were false.

14. Although Goodwin believed and continues to believe that its conduct was proper, Goodwin advised the court and the plaintiffs of its willingness to withdraw from the representation of

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar

October 10, 2020

Page 4

the nine former employees and to provide independent counsel should the witnesses need it.6

The court held a status hearing that confirmed the bank’s willingness to withdraw on communication and other terms acceptable to the court and referred the matter to a magistrate judge to oversee the withdrawal.⁷

15.  After the withdrawal was complete, the district court in the Cook County case denied the motion to disqualify Goodwin as ⁸ The court granted none of the sanctions that Cook County had sought in its motion.

16.  Goodwin promptly filed the Cook County order with the Northern District of Georgi a in the Cobb County case, and that court denied as moot the Georgia Counties motion to disqualify Goodwin.⁹

It denied other requested relief with respect to the witnesses and the requested sanctions, noting that plaintiffs did not specifically rely on the statements from the witnesses in question in their Second Amended Complaint and that defendants had not referenced them in their pending motion to dismiss, so that those issues were moot at the time of order.

The court left often the possibility of addressing the requested relief and sanctions “[i]f the confidential witnesses become relevant ” ¹⁰

No subsequent filing attempts to raise the issues again.

17.  Cook County moved in the Northern District of Illinois for sanctions against Goodwin in the amount of its expert expenses in connection with the motion for disqualification proceedings and relief from the twenty-deposition limit that Court had imposed.11

Goodwin opposed that motion, arguing in part that the Court had already denied the requested 12 On August 25, 2020, the court denied the motion for sanctions, finding it to be “without merit.”¹³

18.  While I was not directly involved in Goodwin’ s allegedly improper conduct, I continue to believe that Goodwin’s actions with respect to the witnesses were No client or former client of

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar

October 10, 2020

Page 5

Goodwin in these cases – not the bank and not any of the witnesses at issue – has complained about Goodwin’s conduct. So far as I know, no bar complaint has been filed against me by any of the counties.

19.  With respect to the allegation (at 9) that Goodwin violated the “hot potato” doctrine in withdrawing from the representation of the witnesses, the counties raised that issue in their motion to disqualify Goodwin¹⁴ (unsupported by Professor Simon). Goodwin’s experts explained in detail why that doctrine was inapplicable.¹⁵ Thereafter, as we have shown, both courts specifically approved the withdrawals, declined to disqualify Goodwin from continuing its representation of  the  bank, and declined to issue sanctions against Goodwin .

20.  With respect to the complaint’s assertion (at 10) that “‘ [p]rima facie evidence exists that Goodwin suborned perjury fr om the confidential witnesses by obtaining false declarations under penalty of perjury …”‘, complainants are quoting a passage from Professor Simon’s initial declarations in support of disqualification,¹⁶ which was filed before Goodwin’ s detailed explanation of the communications with the witnesses.

Complainants’ only evidence of perjury is that five of the witnesses each signed a declaration that was allegedly inconsistent with a prior declaration obtained by Cook County investigators.17

But in my experience there are many reasons short of perjury why witnesses might sign a declaration (or give testimony) that is inconsistent with a prior declaration, as both of Goodwin’s experts explained in their declarations, relying on the descriptions of the communications with the witnesses that Goodwin had provided. ¹⁸

I do not believe that any of the later witness declarations were false, and I do not believe that there is any good reason to conclude that they were false.

21.  Two bar complaints virtually identical to mine were filed with the Virginia State Bar against two partners at Goodwin who have been active in these cases.

Those complaints were also filed as attachments in the Eleventh Circuit appeal from the denial of the Burkes’ motion to intervene.

Burkes’ motion for relief to retain the three reply briefs on the record (filed June 9, 2020), in Burke v.

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar

October 10, 2020

Page 6

Ocwen Financial Corp., LLC, No. 19-13015 {11^th Cir.), Ex. A and Ex. B.

According to the Burkes, the Virginia Bar decided after preliminary review not to proceed on the basis of the complaints.

See Third opposed motion to stay proceeding and motion to hold case in abeyance (filed July S, 2020), in Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-20267 (5^th Cir. docketed April 22, 2019), Exhibit VSB (Burke June 29, 2020 request for reconsideration and Virginia State Bar response of July 5, 2020).

22.  Another bar complaint virtually identical to mine was done June 15, 2020, with the D.C. disciplinary authorities against a third partner at Goodwin who has been active in the relevant cases.

That complaint was also filed in the Burkes’ Fifth Circuit appeal from the dismissal of their suit against Ocwen.

See Third opposed motion to stay proceeding and motion to hold case in abeyance (filed July 5, 2020), in Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. docketed April 22, 2019), at 7 and Exhibit DCBar.

According to the Burkes, the D.C. disciplinary authorities rejected the complaint on August 4, 2020.

See Burke letter to Chief Judge Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit, filed in No. 19-13015 (Aug. 6, 2020) at 3.

23.  The instant bar complaint against me was also filed in the Burkes’ Fifth Circuit appeal from the dismissal of their suit against Ocwen.

See Third opposed motion to stay proceeding and motion to hold case in abeyance (filed July 5, 2020}, in Burke Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. docketed April 22, 2019}, at 7 [CHECK] and Exhibit FLBar.

24.  The complaint states (at 4-5) that the Burkes have filed a judicial complaint against Judge Marra, the judge who denied the Burkes’ motion to intervene in the Southern District of Florida.

The judicial complaint was filed on June 9, 2020, in the appeal from Judge Marra’s denial, Burke v. Ocwen Financial Corp., No. 19-13015 (11^th Cir.).

The judicial complaint has also been filed as an attachment in Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-20267 (5^th Ctr. docketed April 22, 2019).

See Third opposed motion to stay proceeding and motion to hold case in abeyance (filed July 5, 2020), Exhibit Marra.

The judicial complaint alleges (at 4-5) that Judge Marra’s assertions were “false, untruthful and for the purposes of this judicial complaint, personaI and pervasive bias against these pro se elderly citizens from Texas.”

I am not aware of any action on this judicial complaint.

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar

October 10, 2020

Page 7

25. I would be happy, if necessary, to submit copies of any documents referenced in this response.

CC: Joanna and John Burke

UPDATE; 2nd September, 2020

Emailed: 2:23 PM (2nd Sept., 2020)

Dear Mr. Wilhelm

COMPLAINT; CATALINA AZUERO; REF; 21-112 

Per your email stating it would arrive “shortly”. – Fri. 21st Aug.
Postmarked (reg. mail) – Mon. 24th Aug.
Arrived Kingwood TX, – Fri. 28th Aug. (p.m.)
Your letter demanded return by Mon. 31st Aug.
We ignored the prepaid reg. email and posted USPS priority mail (2 day delivery) same day, Friday, 28th Aug. as it took 5 days reg. mail to arrive.
Our priority shipping letter to the Florida Bar arrived today, 1.31 p.m – Wed., 2nd Sept.
As you are most likely aware, USPS deliveries are severely affected by the pandemic.
We are questioning why there was even a deadline applied to your letter, it’s not in any rules and certainly the demand timeline was unreasonable at a minimum.
We assume this will not affect our complaint.

Your earliest confirmation via EMAIL is respectfully requested.

Sincerely

Joanna Burke

RESPONSE;

From: Wilhelm, William W <wwilhelm@floridabar.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: YOUR LETTER W/AFFIDAVIT
To: Joanna Burke <kajongwe@gmail.com>

All good with your affidavit….Your complaint will be processed in a few days….be well…www

UPDATE; 30th August, 2020

The Burkes timeline. Filed a complaint via email submission on June 18th, 2020. Assigned case ref. 21-112 on July 6th, 2020. Letter dated July 9th sent to Burkes declining to process complaint without originals which was received by Burkes in last 3rd of July. The Burkes complaints end up with Mr Wilhelm of the Fl. Bar stating via late Friday evening email (Aug. 21) that the Burkes would receive a letter with stamped address envelope to return blue ink affidavit “soon”. No mention of deadlines. On Mon., Aug 24th Bar posted letter by regular mail. It arrived Friday afternoon, 28th Aug. The Burkes, returned it sameday via USPS priority mail. See short video below for details.

UPDATE; 4th August, 2020

The Burkes received a letter via snail mail dated 9th July from the Florida Bar declining to process the complaint. The Burkes only received this letter at the end of July due to the fact USPS is so far behind on delivering mail. Here’s the Burkes emailed response;

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois – CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14-cv-02280

57

Feb 22, 2018

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Catalina E Azuero on behalf of OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Attorney Catalina E Azuero added to party OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Catalina E Azuero added to party Ocwen Financial Corporation(pty:dft), Attorney Catalina E Azuero added to party Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.(pty:dft). (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

60

Feb 27, 2018

MOTION to Strike 53 Notice of Supplemental Authority, 31 MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 52 Notice (Other) by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Responses due by 3/13/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

61

Feb 27, 2018

RESPONSE in Support re 55 MOTION for Protective Order filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Sabrina Rose-Smith in Support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order), # 2 Exhibit A (Exhibit A to the Declaration))(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

69

Mar 12, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION to Intervene MOTION to Certify Class MOTION to Appoint Counsel MOTION to Add MGC Mortgage Inc. and LNV Corporation as Defendants filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 3/19/2018. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

76

Mar 30, 2018

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Re: 55 ; Joint Notice Regarding Ocwen’s Motion for Protective Order (Azuero, Catalina) Modified to add document link on 4/2/2018 (pes). (Entered: 03/30/2018)

97

May 18, 2018

RESPONSE to 89 Order, (Response to Request to Unseal) by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

101

May 25, 2018

MOTION to Seal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Its First Set of Interrogatories per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

102

May 25, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION to Compel Complete Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 6/1/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Catalina Azuero, # 2 Declaration of Andrew Combs)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

113

Jun 6, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Challenge Defendants’ Confidential Designations and Incorporated Memorandum filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 6/13/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joseph J. Samarias)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/06/2018)

114

Jun 7, 2018

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. re: DE 95 Joint Notice Regarding the Bureau’s Motion to Compel Answers to its First Set of Interrogatories (Azuero, Catalina) Modified link on 6/8/2018 (pes). (Entered: 06/07/2018)

126

Jun 15, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 MOTION for Leave to File filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 6/22/2018. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

127

Jun 15, 2018

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 115 MOTION to Compel Answer to Interrogatory 2 of its Second Set of Interrogatories by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

181

Oct 9, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 173 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Produce Complete Borrower Servicing Files (Requests for Production 8 – 10) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 10/16/2018. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

182

Oct 9, 2018

Declaration of Catalina E. Azuero in Support to 181 Response in Opposition to Motion, by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

183

Oct 9, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 175 MOTION to Compel Complete Responses to its Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 10/16/2018. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

195

Oct 29, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 190 MOTION to Compel COMPLETE RESPONSES TO ITS FOURTH AND FIFTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 11/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Catalina E. Azuero, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Wein, Andrew) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

235

Jan 22, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 221 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer the Complaint filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 1/29/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

278

Mar 8, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. (Joint Notice and Proposed Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

279

Mar 8, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 266 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Consolidate Cases with related action by Florida Attorney General and State of Florida OFR filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 3/15/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

291

Apr 1, 2019

MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs Third Set of Interrogatories by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

300

Apr 9, 2019

MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Florida Office of the Attorney General to Produce Responsive Documents and Provide Complete Discovery Responses by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Responses due by 4/23/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/09/2019)

301

Apr 9, 2019

MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Florida Office of Financial Regulation to Participate in Discovery and Complete Discovery Responses by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Responses due by 4/23/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/09/2019)

320

Apr 19, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 291 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs Third Set of Interrogatories filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/19/2019)

326

Apr 22, 2019

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to file Notice of Intent to Request, and Motion/Request for, Redaction of Transcript of Hearing Procedures by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Responses due by 5/6/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

327

Apr 22, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 308 MOTION to Compel court-ordered RWG Reports and MAFs filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 4/29/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

337

Apr 24, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 317 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Compel Defendants to Provide Complete Answers to Interrogatories 1-4 filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 5/1/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

341

Apr 26, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. re 293 Order,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, Set/Reset Motion/R&R Deadlines and Hearings, (Joint Notice in Advance of May 2, 2019 Hearing) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

345

May 1, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. (Notice in Advance of May 2, 2019 Hearing) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

351

May 9, 2019

MOTION to Seal Exhibit to Its Notice by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Azuero, Catalina) Modified on 5/10/2019 (dj). Modified on 5/10/2019 (dj). (Entered: 05/09/2019)351

352

May 9, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

434

Aug 26, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 428 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 421 Defendant’s MOTION For Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents, 419 Defendant’s MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff Florida Office o filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 9/3/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

441

Aug 27, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. re 434 Response in Opposition to Motion, (AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

444

Aug 28, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 420 Defendant’s MOTION to Compel Fact Discovery from Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1A, # 2 Exhibit 1B, # 3 Exhibit 1C, # 4 Exhibit 1D, # 5 Exhibit 1E, # 6 Exhibit 1F, # 7 Exhibit 1G, # 8 Exhibit 1H, # 9 Exhibit 1I, # 10 Exhibit 2, # 11 Exhibit 3, # 12 Exhibit 4, # 13 Exhibit 5, # 14 Exhibit 6, # 15 Exhibit 7, # 16 Exhibit 8)(Azuero, Catalina) Modified by Sealing Exhibits [444-1] through [444-10] pursuant to 446 Order on 8/30/2019 (nc). (Entered: 08/28/2019)

447

Aug 29, 2019

MOTION to Seal Reply Memorandum In Support of Its Motion For Discovery Sanctions Relating to Plaintiff’s At-Issue Loan Disclosures per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

448

Aug 29, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 422 Defendant’s MOTION for Sanctions Relating to Plaintiffs’ At-Issue Loan Disclosures (Redacted) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

451

Sep 3, 2019

Corporate Disclosure Statement by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. identifying Corporate Parent OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. for OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

465

Sep 18, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 421 Defendant’s MOTION For Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents (Redacted) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

466

Sep 18, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 419 Defendant’s MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff Florida Office of Financial Regulation’s Violation of Discovery Orders filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

480

Oct 3, 2019

MOTION for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (DE 452) by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

501

Oct 24, 2019

Joint SCHEDULING REPORT – Rule by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., Office of Financial Regulation, Office of the Attorney General (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

505

Nov 1, 2019

ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

513

Nov 7, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 480 MOTION for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (DE 452) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/07/2019)

516

Nov 12, 2019

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Its Renewed Motion to Reopen and Compel Fact Discovery from Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Responses due by 11/26/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

523

Nov 18, 2019

Unopposed MOTION to Seal Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Reopen and Compel Fact Discovery from Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/18/2019)

524

Nov 18, 2019

MOTION to Compel and Reopen Fact Discovery From Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Responses due by 12/2/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Filed Under Seal, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/18/2019)

541

Nov 22, 2019

Unopposed MOTION to Seal Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents (DE 522) per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

542

Nov 22, 2019

MOTION for Reconsideration re 522 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Sealed Motion REDACTED by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

543

Nov 25, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 515 Renewed MOTION to Compel Production of Improperly Logged Documents and Motion for Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Attorney Catalina E Azuero added to party PHH Mortgage Corporation(pty:dft). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

545

Nov 27, 2019

Unopposed MOTION to Seal Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

546

Nov 27, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 531 MOTION to Reopen Discovery redacted filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 12/4/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

550

Nov 27, 2019

Amended ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

551

Dec 2, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 524 MOTION to Compel and Reopen Fact Discovery From Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/02/2019)

553

Dec 2, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation Joint Notice in Advance of December 4, 2019 Hearing (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/02/2019)

557

Dec 4, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 527 MOTION to Strike 505 Answer to Amended Complaint Defendants’ Sixth Affirmative Defense filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 12/11/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/04/2019)

563

Dec 9, 2019

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

573

Dec 18, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation (Joint Notice Regarding Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Improperly Logged Documents and Motion for Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

Main Doc­ument

579

Jan 13, 2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 570 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases on behalf of Bureau and Florida Plaintiffs filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 1/21/2020. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 01/13/2020)

588

Feb 7, 2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 583 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Third Amended Complaint and Allow for Limited Fact Discovery Related Thereto and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 2/14/2020. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 02/07/2020)

614

Apr 28, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 612 Response/Reply (Other), (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/28/2020)

617

Apr 29, 2020

NOTICE of Striking 614 Certificate of Service filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., Ocwen Financial Corporation by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

618

Apr 29, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 612 Response/Reply (Other), (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

634

Jun 5, 2020

Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Responses due by 6/19/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

635

Jun 5, 2020

Statement of: Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 634 Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9 (filed under Seal), # 11 Exhibit 10 (filed under Seal), # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14 (filed under Seal), # 16 Exhibit 15 (filed under Seal), # 17 Exhibit 16 (filed under Seal), # 18 Exhibit 17 (filed under Seal), # 19 Exhibit 18 (filed under Seal), # 20 Exhibit 19 (filed under Seal), # 21 Exhibit 20 (filed under Seal), # 22 Exhibit 21 (filed under Seal), # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

639

Jun 5, 2020

Statement of: Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 634 Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Index, # 2 Exhibit 29, # 3 Exhibit 30, # 4 Exhibit 31, # 5 Exhibit 32 (filed under Seal), # 6 Exhibit 33 (mailed to Chambers), # 7 Exhibit 34 (mailed to Chambers), # 8 Exhibit 35 (mailed to Chambers), # 9 Exhibit 36 (mailed to Chambers), # 10 Exhibit 37 (mailed to Chambers), # 11 Exhibit 38 (mailed to Chambers), # 12 Exhibit 39 (mailed to Chambers), # 13 Exhibit 40 (mailed to Chambers), # 14 Exhibit 41 (mailed to Chambers), # 15 Exhibit 42 (mailed to Chambers), # 16 Exhibit 43 (mailed to Chambers), # 17 Exhibit 44 (mailed to Chambers), # 18 Exhibit 45 (mailed to Chambers), # 19 Exhibit 46 (mailed to Chambers), # 20 Exhibit 47 (mailed to Chambers), # 21 Exhibit 48 (mailed to Chambers), # 22 Exhibit 49 (mailed to Chambers), # 23 Exhibit 50 (mailed to Chambers), # 24 Exhibit 51 (mailed to Chambers), # 25 Exhibit 52 (mailed to Chambers), # 26 Exhibit 53 (filed under Seal), # 27 Exhibit 54, # 28 Exhibit 55, # 29 Exhibit 55A (mailed to Chambers), # 30 Exhibit 55B (mailed to Chambers), # 31 Exhibit 56, # 32 Exhibit 57)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

640

Jun 5, 2020

Statement of: Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 634 Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Index, # 2 Exhibit 58 (filed under Seal), # 3 Exhibit 59 (filed under Seal), # 4 Exhibit 60 (filed under Seal), # 5 Exhibit 61 (filed under Seal), # 6 Exhibit 62 (filed under Seal), # 7 Exhibit 63 (mailed to Chambers), # 8 Exhibit 64, # 9 Exhibit 65 (mailed to Chambers), # 10 Exhibit 66, # 11 Exhibit 67 (mailed to Chambers), # 12 Exhibit 68 (filed under Seal), # 13 Exhibit 69 (mailed to Chambers), # 14 Exhibit 70 (filed under Seal), # 15 Exhibit 71, # 16 Exhibit 72, # 17 Exhibit 73, # 18 Exhibit 74 (filed under Seal), # 19 Exhibit 75 (filed under Seal), # 20 Exhibit 76 (filed under Seal), # 21 Exhibit 77 (filed under Seal), # 22 Exhibit 78 (filed under Seal), # 23 Exhibit 79, # 24 Exhibit 80, # 25 Exhibit 81, # 26 Exhibit 82 (mailed to Chambers), # 27 Exhibit 83 (filed under Seal), # 28 Exhibit 84 (filed under Seal), # 29 Exhibit 85 (filed under Seal), # 30 Exhibit 86 (filed under Seal), # 31 Exhibit 87 (filed under Seal), # 32 Exhibit 88 (filed under Seal), # 33 Exhibit 89 (filed under Seal), # 34 Exhibit 90 (filed under Seal), # 35 Exhibit 91, # 36 Exhibit 92, # 37 Exhibit 93 (filed under Seal), # 38 Exhibit 94, # 39 Exhibit 95 (filed under Seal), # 40 Exhibit 96 (filed under Seal), # 41 Exhibit 97, # 42 Exhibit 98 (filed under Seal))(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

641

Jun 5, 2020

Statement of: Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 634 Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Index, # 2 Exhibit 99 (filed under Seal), # 3 Exhibit 100 (filed under Seal), # 4 Exhibit 101 (filed under Seal), # 5 Exhibit 102 (filed under Seal), # 6 Exhibit 103 (filed under Seal), # 7 Exhibit 104 (filed under Seal), # 8 Exhibit 105 (filed under Seal), # 9 Exhibit 106 (filed under Seal), # 10 Exhibit 107 (filed under Seal), # 11 Exhibit 108 (filed under Seal), # 12 Exhibit 109 (filed under Seal), # 13 Exhibit 110 (filed under Seal), # 14 Exhibit 111 (filed under Seal), # 15 Exhibit 112 (filed under Seal), # 16 Exhibit 113 (filed under Seal), # 17 Exhibit 114 (filed under Seal), # 18 Exhibit 115 (filed under Seal), # 19 Exhibit 116 (filed under Seal), # 20 Exhibit 117 (filed under Seal), # 21 Exhibit 118 (filed under Seal), # 22 Exhibit 119 (filed under Seal), # 23 Exhibit 120 (filed under Seal), # 24 Exhibit 121, # 25 Exhibit 122 (filed under Seal), # 26 Exhibit 123 (filed under Seal), # 27 Exhibit 124 (filed under Seal), # 28 Exhibit 125, # 29 Exhibit 126, # 30 Exhibit 127, # 31 Exhibit 128, # 32 Exhibit 129 (filed under Seal), # 33 Exhibit 130 (filed under Seal), # 34 Exhibit 131, # 35 Exhibit 132, # 36 Exhibit 133 (filed under Seal), # 37 Exhibit 134, # 38 Exhibit 135, # 39 Exhibit 136, # 40 Exhibit 137, # 41 Exhibit 138)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

651

Jun 24, 2020

Joint MOTION for Clarification of Matters Relating to Trial and Defendants’ Opposed Motion for a Case Management Conference re 647 Order on Motion to Seal by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

671

Jul 14, 2020

REPLY to Response to Motion re 637 Defendant’s MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Bureau Expert John Searson and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

672

Jul 14, 2020

REPLY to Response to Motion re 638 Defendant’s MOTION Motion to Exclude Testimony of Bureau Expert Daniel McFadden and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

674

Jul 24, 2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 630 Plaintiff’s MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Joint) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 7/31/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A – Navient Hearing Tr (Excerpted))(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

675

Jul 24, 2020

Statement of: Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts, and Defendants Counterstatement of Material Facts, in Support of Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 674 Response in Opposition to Motion, 631 Statement, (Attachments: # 1 Defendants’ Index of Exhibits to Defendants’ RSF, # 2 Exhibit 1 – SJ Opp. – Excerpts of Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs First Requests for Production of Documents to Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc., and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (Dec. 6, 2017), # 3 Exhibit 2 – SJ Opp. – Freddie Mac Single-Family Seller Servicer Guide, # 4 Exhibit 3 – SJ Opp. – Letter from Catalina E. Azuero to Sasha Funk Granai and Scott R. Fransen (July 5, 2018), # 5 Exhibit 4 – SJ Opp. – Redacted OCW-CFPB-001-02104570, # 6 Exhibit 5 – SJ Opp. – (filed under seal), # 7 Exhibit 6 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Deposition of Christopher Kennedy (April 23, 2019), # 8 Exhibit 7 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Hearing Transcript of Brian LaForest (May 26, 2016), # 9 Exhibit 8 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Hearing Transcript of Mark Ehrenreich (June 8, 2016), # 10 Exhibit 9 – SJ Opp. – Errata Sheet to Deposition of William Erbey Deposition (June 21, 2019), # 11 Exhibit 10 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Deposition of Thomas Arnett (April 25, 2019), # 12 Exhibit 11 – SJ Opp. – Ocwen Financial Corporation Form 8-K (Oct. 5, 2012), # 13 Exhibit 12 – SJ Opp. – Ocwen Financial Corporation Form 8-K (Feb. 19, 2013), # 14 Exhibit 13 – SJ Opp. – Redacted Declaration from Krysta Sebastian (“Sebastian Decl.”) (July 24, 2020), # 15 Exhibit 14 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 16 Exhibit 15 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 17 Exhibit 16A – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 18 Exhibit 16B – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 19 Exhibit 17 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 20 Exhibit 18 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 21 Exhibit 19 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 22 Exhibit 20 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 23 Exhibit 21 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 24 Exhibit 22 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 25 Exhibit 23 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 26 Exhibit 24 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 27 Exhibit 25 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 28 Exhibit 26 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 29 Exhibit 27 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 30 Exhibit 28 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 31 Exhibit 29 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Deposition of Benjamin Purser (April 3, 2019), # 32 Exhibit 30 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers))(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

684

Jul 28, 2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 669 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Strike Declaration of Benjamin Verdooren and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 8/4/2020. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION

OPINION 94-5

April 30, 1995

Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

Under most circumstances, it is unethical to threaten a fellow member of the bar with a grievance complaint.

Note: When this opinion was written, there was no express prohibition against such conduct in the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Supreme Court has since adopted Rule 4-3.4(h). See In re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 718 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1998).

RPC:              4-1.6, 4-3.1, 4-4.1, 4-4.4, 4-8.3, 4-8.3(a), 4-8.4(a), 4-.84(d)

Opinion:         89-3

Case:               The Florida Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1989)

The Committee has been asked whether an attorney may threaten to file a disciplinary complaint against opposing counsel in order to obtain advantage in a civil matter.

Despite the absence of an express prohibition in the Rules of Professional Conduct (Chapter 4, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar), the Committee is of the opinion that such conduct is ethically impermissible under most circumstances.

Under the “Reporting Professional Misconduct” rule, Rule 4-8.3, an attorney is obligated to report another attorney’s misconduct if the attorney has actual knowledge of a misconduct that raises a substantial question as to the offending attorney’s “honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” Rule 4-8.3(a).  An attorney, however, may not report the violation if the information is protected by the confidentiality rule, Rule 4-1.6, unless the attorney has the consent of the client.

As a result, in situations where an attorney is required to report a violation, the attorney’s failure to do so would constitute misconduct under Rule 4-8.4(a).

Similarly, an agreement not to file a grievance complaint would violate Rule 4-8.4(a) where the filing of a complaint would otherwise be required by Rule 4-8.3(a). See The Florida Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So.2d 602, 605 (Fla. 1989) (client’s agreement not to bring attorney’s unethical conduct to attention of the Bar is unenforceable).

Therefore, if an attorney is obligated to report another attorney’s professional misconduct, the attorney must report it rather than threaten to do so.

Even when an attorney is not required to report the professional misconduct under Rule 4-8.3, threatening a disciplinary action may violate one or more of Rules 4-8.4(b), 4-3.1, 4-4.1, 4-4.4 and 4-8.4(d).

Rule 4-8.4(b) prohibits an attorney from committing “a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”

Therefore, an attorney is prohibited from conduct which would constitute extortion under criminal law.

Rule 4-3.1 generally prohibits an attorney from bringing a frivolous proceeding. This rule would prohibit an attorney from filing a disciplinary complaint that is not well founded in fact and in law.

Rule 4-4.1 requires an attorney to be truthful in dealing with others on a client’s behalf. Therefore, an attorney who threatens to file a disciplinary complaint without any actual intent to do so would violate this rule.

Rule 4-4.4 states that in representing a client an attorney “shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.”

This rule would therefore prohibit an attorney from threatening to file a disciplinary complaint if the primary purpose of doing so was to harass or embarrass the other attorney.

Rule 4-8.4(d) provides that an attorney shall not “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

In our Opinion 89-3, the Committee concluded that an attorney is prohibited from threatening criminal prosecution solely to gain advantage in a civil matter.

In that opinion the Committee stated, “[t]he criminal process was not intended to be used as a means of settling private disputes and is undermined when it is misused in such a manner.”

Likewise, the disciplinary process is not intended to be used as a means of settling private disputes.

In conclusion, if an attorney is obligated to report another attorney’s professional misconduct pursuant to Rule 4-8.3, then it is ethically impermissible for the attorney to threaten the other attorney with the filing of a disciplinary complaint.

Even if an attorney is not obligated to report the other attorney’s misconduct, threatening to file a disciplinary complaint often will violate one or more of the Rules of Professional Conduct.