Cause No. 01-19-0002-7577 ALI MOKARAM, § Claimant, § v ......Jan 11, 2021 · 1 2119-2119_ARB_2021_01_08_MartynHill_MotionToWithdrawAsCounselToDalio_(V03) (1) Cause No. 01-19-0002-7577

1 2119-2119_ARB_2021_01_08_MartynHill_MotionToWithdrawAsCounselToDalio_(V03) (1)

Cause No. 01-19-0002-7577 ALI MOKARAM, §

§ Claimant, §

§ v. §

§ DALIO HOLDINGS I, LLC, § DALIO HOLDINGS II, LLC, and § ALI CHOUDHRI, §

§ Respondents, §

§ v. §

§ TEXAS REIT, LLC, §

§ Nominal Party. §

MARTYN B. HILL‘S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

FOR DALIO HOLDINGS I, LLC & DALIO HOLDINGS II, LLC TO THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL:

Martyn B. Hill files this Notice/Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of record for Respondents

Dalio Holdings I, LLC and Dalio Holdings II, LLC (cumulatively, “Dalio”), and would show

the Tribunal as follows:

1. I have given notice to Dalio that I am withdrawing from representation in this case. I had

hoped that such withdrawal would include the transition to replacement counsel for Dalio, but

under the present circumstances, my withdrawal can wait no longer. This Arbitration Panel has

issued Orders (Interim Procedural Order #27, copy attached as Exhibit “A”), which put me in

direct conflict with Dalio, and such Panel Orders also have the potential to impact individuals

associated with Dalio in such a manner as to create a potential conflict of interest. Under the


circumstances and based on my reading of the Texas Disciplinary Rules, my withdrawal is

mandatory.

2. Further and more specifically, such Panel Orders to turn over certain documents (the

“Wyatt Documents”) put me in a direct conflict with a Temporary Restraining Order issued by the

334th District Court issued January 5, 2021 (copy attached as Exhibit “B”), and a demand by Joe

Sibley as counsel for Plaintiff Jetall Companies, Inc in that case that I honor the TRO, return the

Wyatt Documents that Wyatt sent to me, and not further disseminate the Wyatt Documents (copy

of Demand of January 6, 2021 attached as Exhibit “C”). In a followup to that discussion, Mr.

Sibley wrote this Panel to request that all issues be stayed until a Court can resolve the conflict

between the Panel Orders and the TRO (copy of Mr. Sibley’s email dated January 8, 2021 attached

as Exhibit “D”). To date, I’ve not seen a response.

3. To clarify the situation, I have no documents in my possession responsive to any subpoena

by Mokaram or ordered by this Panel which have not already been produced, except for the Wyatt

Documents which were not produced to me by Dalio, but instead were produced by Wyatt. Prior

to the TRO or this Panel’s Orders in question, the Wyatt Documents were shared only with

Respondents and all of their counsel of record in this Arbitration Proceeding, and the Wyatt

Documents have now been shared with Mr. Sibley as counsel for Jetall; but have otherwise been

protected from dissemination and treated as “confidential” based on Client instructions

accordingly. Several documents as authorized were produced to Mr. Funk as counsel for

Mokaram; but based on client instructions, others were not.

4. Rule 1.15 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules obligates me to withdraw from representation of

Dalio.


5. As noted above, the conflict between the TRO, instructions from Mr. Sibley as counsel for

Jetall, recognizing that Jetall is a former client of mine, and under the difficult circumstances

presented, I must withdraw from the representation of Dalio. Again, the Texas Disciplinary Rules

mandate such withdrawal. This leaves an open question as to whether I am required to ignore all

such Client instructions and the TRO in light of the Panel’s Orders to the contrary. There is no

easy answer to this question, and I do not profess to be a scholar of the Texas Disciplinary Rules.

However, the following excerpts seem applicable:

Rule 1.05 Confidentiality of Information. (a) Confidential information includes both privileged

information and unprivileged client information. Privileged information refers to the

information of a client protected by the lawyer-client privilege . . . . Unprivileged client

information means all information relating to a client or furnished by the client, other than

privileged information, acquired by the lawyer during the course of or by reason of the

representation of the client.

6. I acquired the Wyatt documents only because of my representation of Dalio, so such

documents are subject to Rule 1.05. Comment 3 to Rule 1.05 provides that a client can “prevent

certain confidential communications from being revealed by compulsion of law.” I read this to

suggest that even if there were no TRO which creates a contradictory legal prohibition to disclosure

in violation of the TRO, the client nevertheless has a right to prevent counsel from revealing such

information even by compulsion of law.

7. Like most legal principles, there are several exceptions under Comment 3 to Rule 1.05, but

all of those exceptions appear to be in the instance where a client intends to commit a crime or

fraud and revelation of the confidential information would prevent the affirmative commission of

a harmful act (crime). There is no allegation and certainly no evidence that the Wyatt Documents


are somehow connected to the intention to use such information to commit a crime. The Wyatt

Documents are entirely of a historical nature dealing with alleged liability and related (allegedly)

damages for past conduct, not the prevention of a future crime. Therefore, I read Rule 1.05 and

the Commentary to it as prohibiting my direct violation of a client instruction, even in the absence

of a TRO, but most certainly when buttressed by such TRO and the demands of Joe Sibley as

counsel for Jetall (from which such documents were misappropriated by Wyatt) that I honor the

TRO, which instructions not to turn over documents were sustained by further client admonitions.

8. Under the circumstances present in this case, I believe that ethical principles and the Texas

Disciplinary Rules mandate my withdrawal and that I preserve Client confidences as instructed by

the Client.

9. Dalio, through its current owner, Mr. Chaudhri, is aware that I am withdrawing from

representation of Dalio and consents. He is aware that the Panel set February 8, 2021 for the final

hearing. He has been advised that my withdrawal will not be grounds for a continuance, that a

corporate entity must be represented by a licensed attorney or risk default, and that the Panel has

announced that Dalio cannot use my withdrawal to delay this proceeding or the final hearing set

for February 8, 2021.

10. Apparently, there is a Panel requirement that Dalio also acknowledge that my withdrawal

will not serve to disqualify or object to any arbitrator serving in this matter, regardless of any prior

relationship with an arbitrator. Dalio through Mr. Choudhri has been advised of same and of

Interim Panel Order #27, though Dalio may disagree and reserve all rights to object to the Panel’s

Orders that have placed counsel for Dalio in the unenviable position of conflict between and among

clients, as well as between the Panel and the Client. This is unprecedented from my experience,

and the Texas Disciplinary Rules provide little guidance beyond that cited above.


11. The AAA Commercial Rules provide no guidance regarding withdrawal of counsel. If

necessary, counsel requests the arbitration panel sign an order confirming this withdrawal.

12. Good cause for withdrawal exists; and as indicated, withdrawal is mandatory under these

circumstances.

13. Claimant’s counsel does not oppose this motion. This motion is not sought for the

purposes of delay.

14. A copy of this motion is being delivered via email as follows:

Dalio Holdings I, LLC Dalio Holdings II, LLC c/o Ali Choudhri 1001 West Loop South Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77027 [email protected]

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Martyn B. Hill provides notice of

withdrawal and respectfully requests, if necessary, an order granting this motion and discharging

Martyn B. Hill as counsel of record for Respondent Dalio Holdings I, LLC and Dalio Holdings II,

LLC, and for all other relief that may be awarded in law or equity.

Respectfully submitted,

PAGEL, DAVIS & HILL, P.C.

/s/ Martyn B. Hill_________ Martyn B. Hill State Bar No. 09647460 1415 Louisiana, 22nd Floor Houston, Texas 77002-7360 Telephone: (713) 951-0160 Facsimile: (713) 951-0662 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Dalio Holdings I, LLC and Dalio Holdings II, LLC

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record and pro se parties in accordance with the AAA rules on January 11, 2021 by email.

/s/ Martyn B. Hill Martyn B. Hill

EXHIBIT

A

EXHIBIT

B

From: Joe SibleyTo: Martyn B HillSubject: Jetall"s Notice of Clawback of Documents Received from Chris WyattDate: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 10:51:25 AMAttachments: 2021-00192(1).pdf

Marty,

As I believe you know, Chris Wyatt, a former employee of Jetall has absconded from thecompany with Jetall's confidential files. Attached is an agreed TRO preserving the status quoof those confidential files from being disclosed by Mr. Wyatt or Jetall's confidentialinformation.

I understand you are in possession of files from Jetall that you received via Mr. Wyatt. Jetallis hereby exercising a "clawback" as to those files and demands that you return those files tome. We will assess what files are confidential. We may determine some of the files are not,in fact, confidential and may be agreeable to allowing them to be produced in the Dalioarbitration. However, we need to make the assessment of the confidentiality of our filesbefore that happens.

Please return the files to me as soon as possible and do not further disclose these files to anyother parties unless and until we approve.

Best regards,

Joe Sibley

Exhibit "C"
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

eFileActivity: TRORXCASO

eFilePgs: Pgs-3

From: Ali @ JetallTo: Jeff Joyce; Carl Dawson; David, Kate; Joe Sibley; Stephens, BenCc: Martyn B HillSubject: Fwd: Jetall v. Wyatt -- Notice of TRODate: Friday, January 8, 2021 3:20:03 PMAttachments: WyattTRO(Executed).pdf

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Joe Sibley Date: Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 3:14 PMSubject: Fwd: Jetall v. Wyatt -- Notice of TROTo: Ali Jetall

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Joe Sibley Date: Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 3:08 PMSubject: Jetall v. Wyatt -- Notice of TROTo: , , Jerry Hoover

Messrs. Zimmerman, Bergman and Hoover,

I understand you are presiding over an arbitration wherein an individual named Chris Wyatthas been subpoenaed by Ali Mokaram to provide documents that Chris Wyatt obtained fromJetall during the course of his employment with Jetall and which are confidential to Jetall. Ifthese are indeed genuine documents, they were taken in violation of an NDA with Jetall, anon-party to the Mokaram/Texas REIT arbitration. As such, we have obtained a TRO (agreedto by Mr. Wyatt) prohibiting him from disclosing information or documents that areconfidential of Jetall.

The attached TRO enjoins Wyatt or any party acting in concert with him from disclosing thesedocuments. "Confidential" is defined as "private" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confidential). Indeed, if the information sought from Wyatt were notconfidential (not private, but public), then there would be no need to seek it from him since itwould be generally available. Apparently, parties in the arbitration received Jetall'sconfidential documents only from Wyatt. Therefore, to produce these documents to furtherthird parties would be "acting in concert with Wyatt" to disclose otherwise confidentialdocuments to third parties because, but for Wyatt, they would not have the documents (eventhough perhaps an argument could be made that those parties should have had thesedocuments independent of Wyatt). The client (Jetall) is insisting on the documents being keptin status quo and have instructed the parties to the arbitration to this effect.

I understand that there may be some conflict between your orders and the TRO. I alsounderstand you are trying to do your job in moving along an arbitration you have been chargedwith. I further understand that there have been difficulties in doing this. However, I am

EXHIBIT "D"
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confidentialhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confidential

eFileActivity: TRORXCASO

eFilePgs: Pgs-3

asking you to defer enforcements of any order until we can at least seek guidance from theDistrict Court of Harris County on Monday morning, January 11th (we have a 9 am hearingset) that should provide us with a resolution to this problem. I do not want you or otherlawyers in the arbitration to be in a situation of uncertainty, so we are going to try and get ananswer. I'm not asking this of you in the arbitration or on behalf of a party in arbitration, butas counsel for Jetall in the district court action and simply lawyer to lawyer to maintain comitybetween the arbitral panel's powers and the district court and to avoid putting counsel and theparties in an awkward and uncomfortable situation. I think this minimal delay to have reposeon this issue would be worthwhile for all and avoid the need for any parties to fear violatingyour order or the TRO.

Thank you for your consideration and I wish you best regards,

Joe Sibley

-- Ali JetallJetall Companies1001 West Loop South Suite 700Houston, Texas 77027713-789-7654 telephone832-403-3276 direct281-630-6627 mobile713-789-3331 [email protected]

Neither Jetall nor any of its subsidiaries shall be bound by or to any lease, purchase and/or sale agreement, contract orany other instrument or modification thereof, nor to any oral statement made by any person, unless the same has beenreduced to writing and signed by an officer of Jetall or of its appropriate subsidiary.

mailto:[email protected]

MartynHill_MotionToWithdrawAsCounselToDalio.pdfCause No. 01-19-0002-7577ALI MOKARAM, §§Claimant, §§v. §§DALIO HOLDINGS I, LLC, §DALIO HOLDINGS II, LLC, and §ALI CHOUDHRI, §§Respondents, §§v. §§TEXAS REIT, LLC, §§Nominal Party. §

eFilePgs: Pgs-3eFileActivity: TRORXCASO