- 11 -
respondent had made a “proposal” to petitioners. Ms. Keil asked
Tan to review Montgomery’s analysis of the “proposal” and to
discuss it with her.
On December 15, 2003, Montgomery spoke for the first time
with Tan. Later that day in the evening, Montgomery spoke with
Tan a second time for at least 2 hours. During the later call,
Montgomery and Tan discussed the second stipulation of settled
issues and Montgomery’s analysis of it. During no time on that
date (or at any other time) did Montgomery inform Tan that he had
already accepted the settlements on behalf of petitioners, or
that he had signed the first stipulation of settled issues
approximately 1 week before.
Also on December 15, 2004, before he had spoken to Tan in
the evening of that day, Montgomery called Mr. Keil in Washington
to attempt to persuade him to accept the settlements on behalf of
petitioners. The two spoke for approximately 25 minutes, with
Montgomery referring to the second stipulation of settled issues
as a “proposal” and recommending that Mr. Keil accept it. Mr.
Keil responded that he first wanted the “proposal” to be reviewed
by an accountant. In an attempt to persuade Mr. Keil to accept
the second stipulation of settled issues at that time, Montgomery
stated that his law firm would remedy any error reflected in that
stipulation, if one in fact existed. When Mr. Keil continued to
resist, Montgomery threatened to resign as petitioners’ counsel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011