Filing 9280505 Electronically Filed 01172014 112727 AM

RECEIvED 1172014 112845 John A Tomasino Clerk Supreme Court

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613 SCl3-1333

LAURA M WATSON

JUDGE WATSONS RESPONSE TO THE FLORIDA BARS MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO GHENETE WRIGHT MUIR AND THE JQCS JOINDER IN THIS MOTION

Pursuant to Rule 12 FJQCR adopting the Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure Judge Watson hereby provides her Response to The Florida Bars

Motion to Quash the Deposition of Ghenete Wright Muir and the JQCs joinder in

this motion Judge Watson responds as follows

bull042The failure to timely file the motion for protective order or motions to quash

results in a waiver of the objections except for privileged matters Rule

1140(b) and (c)

L THE FLORIDA BAR FAILED TO TIMELY MOVE FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND THEREFORE THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED

On November 12 2013 Judge Watson subpoenaed for Videotape Deposition

of Non-Party Ms Muir for December 5 2013 to give testimony and produce

records relating to The Florida Bars investigation of Judge Watson Counsel for

Judge Watson agreed to postpone the deposition of Ms Muir to a time after the

documents were produced by The Florida Bar The Florida Bar took over seven

weeks to produce these documents providing them on January 7 2014 The

suggestion in paragraph ten (10) that Ms Muirs deposition was cancelled upon an

agreement to produce all non-privileged records and would not be rescheduled is

simply not true On January 7 2014 Henry Coxe emailed the undersigned and

stated Bob-attached is the privilege log Can we talk in the morning We do

need to discuss the deposition scope and entitlement to take it(Exhibit A)

The undersigned returned Mr Coxes call and responded by email

Thanks Hank I called this AM but you were out I am re noticing Ms Muir for deposition in Ft Laud for January 16 at 130 PM Please provide all documents to which you claim a privilege to the Chair Judge Evander so that he can review them prior to our scheduled status conference on January 15 Mr McGrane and I previously cleared this date for potential depositions If it is no longer available I will request an extension as obviously the privilege issue should be determined prior to the deposition

Regards Bob

Exhibit A shows there was never an agreement to forego deposing Ms Muir

The Florida Bar allowed ten weeks to pass and then filed its Motion for Protective

order at the eleventh hour An attorney has a duty to file the motion as soon as the

need for protection arises and obtain a court order to prevent the production of the

documents and excuse the attendance of a witness at a deposition Fla R Civ P

1380(a)(4) There is no excuse for The Florida Bar to delay filing the motion for

protection in January when they knew that Judge Watson intended to take the

deposition of Ms Muir once the documents were produced The Bars motion

should have been filed upon service of the November 2013 Notice and subpoena

No efforts were made by The Florida Bar to file and have heard the motion before

the scheduled deposition The failure to timely file the motion and address these

matters may result in a waiver Rule 1140 (b) and (c) expressly require timely

motion for protective order or motions to quash See Insurance Company ofNorth

America v Nova 398 So2d 836 838 (Fla Sh DCA 1981)

II THE FLORIDA BARS CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE MUST FAIL AND MS MUIRS CLAIM THAT SHE IS IMMUNE FROM DEPOSITION IS

LEGALLY INCORRECT

The Florida Bars privilege log filed in connection with its production of

documents asserts primarily two claims of privilege 1) Work product and 2)

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-711 (Exhibit B) It is important to

understand exactly what is and is not covered by the work-product privilege In the

Fourth District case of Grinnell Corporation v The Palms 2100 Ocean Blvd LTD

924 So2d 887 (Fla 4h DCA 2006) the District Court followed the federal court

i Of the 49 documents claimed to be privileged Attorney- client privilege was raised to only seven of them

cases interpreting the United States Supreme Court case ofHickman v Taylor 329

US 495 67 SCt 385 91 LEd 451 (1947)

[T]he work product concept furnishes no shield against discovery by interrogatories or by deposition of the facts that the adverse

partys lawyer has learned or the persons from whom he has learned such facts or the existence or nonexistence of documents

even though the documents themselves may not be subject to

discovery citing Ford v Philips Elecs Instruments Co 82 FKD 359 360 (ED Pa 1979)

Work product privilege is intended to protect an attorneys strategies and legal

impressions [I]t does not protect facts concerning the creation of work product or

facts contained within work productThus a party may properly inquire into the

identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts Id at 894 It

is evident from the documents that were produced that there were telephone

conversations between Ms Muir and numerous people including Larry Stewart

William Hearon Peter Goldman-the attorney for Judge Watson-and the other

attorneys that were the subject of this inquiry (See Bate stamped documents

01446-01454 01538 01543 01583) As noted in our motion Larry Stewart

admitted having phone conversations with John T Berry Legal Division of the

Florida Bar On November 20 2013 he and William Hearon wrote Mr Berry and

advised Based on information that the undersigned has received from Bar staff

counsel Laura M Watson may escape prosecution for numerous findings of

unethical conductAs explained to us by staff counsel in the Broward County

office the Bar is allegedly not authorized to prosecute a grievance against a judge

even for conduct preceding the judgeship and the Judicial Qualification

commission will likewise decline to prosecute the matter since the conduct did not

occur while Ms Watson was a judge (Bate stamped documents 01458-01461) It

should be noted that this letter was sent to many individuals known to be members

of the Bar but who were not on the Grievance Committee (as noted in 01443) and

who appear to have no connection to these proceedings These include Gwynne

A Young Esq Eugene K Pettis Esq Lorna E Browne-Burton Esq Walter G

Campbell Jr Esq Jay Cohen Esq2 Gregory W Coleman Esq Gary S lesser

Esq David C Prather Esq Juliet M Roulhac Esq Michelle R Suskauer Esq

(Bate stamped 01461) In a letter of May 16 2012 Larry Stewart recommended

that [s]hould the Committee have any questions about the foregoing please do not

hesitate to contact me (Bate stamped 01508-01510)

Ms Muir has a tremendous amount of information relevant to this matter

Conversations with individuals in which there is no attorney client privilege are

relevant and necessary It is not grounds for objection that the information sought

2 Jay Cohen was on the Grievance Conunittee but stepped down due to a conflict

will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably

calculated to lead to discoverable evidence FlaRCivP 1280(b)(1) Judge

Watsons affirmative defenses include (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction (2)

that the JQC failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action (3)

that the statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired (4) that the JQC is guilty of laches (5) that the JQC does not have

standing to investigate and hear matters for alleged violations of the Florida Bar

Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney and not a sitting judge (6) that the

Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers (Exhibit C)

The affidavit of Ms Muir filed in support of the Bars motion actually raises

more issues which are relevant to this action and discoverable In paragraph five of

the affidavit she states Subsequent to the finding of probable cause by the

Grievance Committee Respondent was elected to the Circuit Bench in the

Seventeenth Circuit and the Bar disciplinary proceedings pending against

Respondent were placed on monitor status (emphasis supplied) (Muirs

affidavit is marked as Exhibit A to the Bars motion) Despite our best efforts

we have been unable to find any Bar rule that allows references or explains the

monitor status concept Yet as shown by the privilege log even after Judge

Watson won the election and took the bench The Florida Bar continued to

investigate Judge Watson There are twice as many work product documents on

the privilege log after Judge Watsons November 6 2013 election than were

created between May of 2008 - November 6 2013 There are thirty work

product documents between November 14 2013 and December 5 2013 Simply

put it appears that the entire first year that Judge Watson has been on the bench

The Florida Bar has continued to investigate her

The fact that Ms Muir is the attorney for The Bar does not shield her from

being deposed Despite the claim by Ms Muir that [s]he has no involvement in

the instant JQC investigation or disciplinary proceedings (affidavit par 7)

involvement in the proceedings is not the issue Muir has knowledge of the

underlying facts which form the basis of the JQC complaint Not only is Ms Muir

a witness to these proceedings she is a material witness A material witness is

defined as one who possesses information going to some fact affecting the merits

of the cause and about which no other witness might testify Nucci v Simmons 20

So3d 388 390 (Fla 2d DCA 2009) citing Sardinas v Lagares 805 So2d 1024

1026 (Fla 3d 2001) The numerous conversations she had with the Complainants

alone make her testimony needed and Judge Watson anticipates that this evidence

will support one or more of her affirmative defenses As state previously work

product privilege does not apply to conversations an attorney has with a witness

Grinell Corp at 887 Further the Court in Nucci held that there is no absolute

prohibition to deposing opposing counsel even in during the ongoing litigation

Nucci at 391

Respectfully submitted SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Defendants 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By shyROBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by e-mail on this 17 day of January 2014 to The Honorable Laura M

Watson (jwatsonl7thfiacutecourtsorg Ituckerl7thflcourtsorg) 201 SE 6th Street

Rm 1005B Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 Miles A McGrane III Esquire

(milesmcgranelawcom lisamcgranelawcom) The McGrane Law Firm

Special Counsel 2103 Country Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Suite 1612

Judge Watson agreed to postpone the deposition of Ms Muir to a time after the

documents were produced by The Florida Bar The Florida Bar took over seven

weeks to produce these documents providing them on January 7 2014 The

suggestion in paragraph ten (10) that Ms Muirs deposition was cancelled upon an

agreement to produce all non-privileged records and would not be rescheduled is

simply not true On January 7 2014 Henry Coxe emailed the undersigned and

stated Bob-attached is the privilege log Can we talk in the morning We do

need to discuss the deposition scope and entitlement to take it(Exhibit A)

The undersigned returned Mr Coxes call and responded by email

Thanks Hank I called this AM but you were out I am re noticing Ms Muir for deposition in Ft Laud for January 16 at 130 PM Please provide all documents to which you claim a privilege to the Chair Judge Evander so that he can review them prior to our scheduled status conference on January 15 Mr McGrane and I previously cleared this date for potential depositions If it is no longer available I will request an extension as obviously the privilege issue should be determined prior to the deposition

Regards Bob

Exhibit A shows there was never an agreement to forego deposing Ms Muir

The Florida Bar allowed ten weeks to pass and then filed its Motion for Protective

order at the eleventh hour An attorney has a duty to file the motion as soon as the

need for protection arises and obtain a court order to prevent the production of the

documents and excuse the attendance of a witness at a deposition Fla R Civ P

1380(a)(4) There is no excuse for The Florida Bar to delay filing the motion for

protection in January when they knew that Judge Watson intended to take the

deposition of Ms Muir once the documents were produced The Bars motion

should have been filed upon service of the November 2013 Notice and subpoena

No efforts were made by The Florida Bar to file and have heard the motion before

the scheduled deposition The failure to timely file the motion and address these

matters may result in a waiver Rule 1140 (b) and (c) expressly require timely

motion for protective order or motions to quash See Insurance Company ofNorth

America v Nova 398 So2d 836 838 (Fla Sh DCA 1981)

II THE FLORIDA BARS CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE MUST FAIL AND MS MUIRS CLAIM THAT SHE IS IMMUNE FROM DEPOSITION IS

LEGALLY INCORRECT

The Florida Bars privilege log filed in connection with its production of

documents asserts primarily two claims of privilege 1) Work product and 2)

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-711 (Exhibit B) It is important to

understand exactly what is and is not covered by the work-product privilege In the

Fourth District case of Grinnell Corporation v The Palms 2100 Ocean Blvd LTD

924 So2d 887 (Fla 4h DCA 2006) the District Court followed the federal court

i Of the 49 documents claimed to be privileged Attorney- client privilege was raised to only seven of them

cases interpreting the United States Supreme Court case ofHickman v Taylor 329

US 495 67 SCt 385 91 LEd 451 (1947)

[T]he work product concept furnishes no shield against discovery by interrogatories or by deposition of the facts that the adverse

partys lawyer has learned or the persons from whom he has learned such facts or the existence or nonexistence of documents

even though the documents themselves may not be subject to

discovery citing Ford v Philips Elecs Instruments Co 82 FKD 359 360 (ED Pa 1979)

Work product privilege is intended to protect an attorneys strategies and legal

impressions [I]t does not protect facts concerning the creation of work product or

facts contained within work productThus a party may properly inquire into the

identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts Id at 894 It

is evident from the documents that were produced that there were telephone

conversations between Ms Muir and numerous people including Larry Stewart

William Hearon Peter Goldman-the attorney for Judge Watson-and the other

attorneys that were the subject of this inquiry (See Bate stamped documents

01446-01454 01538 01543 01583) As noted in our motion Larry Stewart

admitted having phone conversations with John T Berry Legal Division of the

Florida Bar On November 20 2013 he and William Hearon wrote Mr Berry and

advised Based on information that the undersigned has received from Bar staff

counsel Laura M Watson may escape prosecution for numerous findings of

unethical conductAs explained to us by staff counsel in the Broward County

office the Bar is allegedly not authorized to prosecute a grievance against a judge

even for conduct preceding the judgeship and the Judicial Qualification

commission will likewise decline to prosecute the matter since the conduct did not

occur while Ms Watson was a judge (Bate stamped documents 01458-01461) It

should be noted that this letter was sent to many individuals known to be members

of the Bar but who were not on the Grievance Committee (as noted in 01443) and

who appear to have no connection to these proceedings These include Gwynne

A Young Esq Eugene K Pettis Esq Lorna E Browne-Burton Esq Walter G

Campbell Jr Esq Jay Cohen Esq2 Gregory W Coleman Esq Gary S lesser

Esq David C Prather Esq Juliet M Roulhac Esq Michelle R Suskauer Esq

(Bate stamped 01461) In a letter of May 16 2012 Larry Stewart recommended

that [s]hould the Committee have any questions about the foregoing please do not

hesitate to contact me (Bate stamped 01508-01510)

Ms Muir has a tremendous amount of information relevant to this matter

Conversations with individuals in which there is no attorney client privilege are

relevant and necessary It is not grounds for objection that the information sought

2 Jay Cohen was on the Grievance Conunittee but stepped down due to a conflict

will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably

calculated to lead to discoverable evidence FlaRCivP 1280(b)(1) Judge

Watsons affirmative defenses include (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction (2)

that the JQC failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action (3)

that the statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired (4) that the JQC is guilty of laches (5) that the JQC does not have

standing to investigate and hear matters for alleged violations of the Florida Bar

Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney and not a sitting judge (6) that the

Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers (Exhibit C)

The affidavit of Ms Muir filed in support of the Bars motion actually raises

more issues which are relevant to this action and discoverable In paragraph five of

the affidavit she states Subsequent to the finding of probable cause by the

Grievance Committee Respondent was elected to the Circuit Bench in the

Seventeenth Circuit and the Bar disciplinary proceedings pending against

Respondent were placed on monitor status (emphasis supplied) (Muirs

affidavit is marked as Exhibit A to the Bars motion) Despite our best efforts

we have been unable to find any Bar rule that allows references or explains the

monitor status concept Yet as shown by the privilege log even after Judge

Watson won the election and took the bench The Florida Bar continued to

investigate Judge Watson There are twice as many work product documents on

the privilege log after Judge Watsons November 6 2013 election than were

created between May of 2008 - November 6 2013 There are thirty work

product documents between November 14 2013 and December 5 2013 Simply

put it appears that the entire first year that Judge Watson has been on the bench

The Florida Bar has continued to investigate her

The fact that Ms Muir is the attorney for The Bar does not shield her from

being deposed Despite the claim by Ms Muir that [s]he has no involvement in

the instant JQC investigation or disciplinary proceedings (affidavit par 7)

involvement in the proceedings is not the issue Muir has knowledge of the

underlying facts which form the basis of the JQC complaint Not only is Ms Muir

a witness to these proceedings she is a material witness A material witness is

defined as one who possesses information going to some fact affecting the merits

of the cause and about which no other witness might testify Nucci v Simmons 20

So3d 388 390 (Fla 2d DCA 2009) citing Sardinas v Lagares 805 So2d 1024

1026 (Fla 3d 2001) The numerous conversations she had with the Complainants

alone make her testimony needed and Judge Watson anticipates that this evidence

will support one or more of her affirmative defenses As state previously work

product privilege does not apply to conversations an attorney has with a witness

Grinell Corp at 887 Further the Court in Nucci held that there is no absolute

prohibition to deposing opposing counsel even in during the ongoing litigation

Nucci at 391

Respectfully submitted SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Defendants 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By shyROBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by e-mail on this 17 day of January 2014 to The Honorable Laura M

Watson (jwatsonl7thfiacutecourtsorg Ituckerl7thflcourtsorg) 201 SE 6th Street

Rm 1005B Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 Miles A McGrane III Esquire

(milesmcgranelawcom lisamcgranelawcom) The McGrane Law Firm

Special Counsel 2103 Country Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Suite 1612

documents and excuse the attendance of a witness at a deposition Fla R Civ P

1380(a)(4) There is no excuse for The Florida Bar to delay filing the motion for

protection in January when they knew that Judge Watson intended to take the

deposition of Ms Muir once the documents were produced The Bars motion

should have been filed upon service of the November 2013 Notice and subpoena

No efforts were made by The Florida Bar to file and have heard the motion before

the scheduled deposition The failure to timely file the motion and address these

matters may result in a waiver Rule 1140 (b) and (c) expressly require timely

motion for protective order or motions to quash See Insurance Company ofNorth

America v Nova 398 So2d 836 838 (Fla Sh DCA 1981)

II THE FLORIDA BARS CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE MUST FAIL AND MS MUIRS CLAIM THAT SHE IS IMMUNE FROM DEPOSITION IS

LEGALLY INCORRECT

The Florida Bars privilege log filed in connection with its production of

documents asserts primarily two claims of privilege 1) Work product and 2)

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-711 (Exhibit B) It is important to

understand exactly what is and is not covered by the work-product privilege In the

Fourth District case of Grinnell Corporation v The Palms 2100 Ocean Blvd LTD

924 So2d 887 (Fla 4h DCA 2006) the District Court followed the federal court

i Of the 49 documents claimed to be privileged Attorney- client privilege was raised to only seven of them

cases interpreting the United States Supreme Court case ofHickman v Taylor 329

US 495 67 SCt 385 91 LEd 451 (1947)

[T]he work product concept furnishes no shield against discovery by interrogatories or by deposition of the facts that the adverse

partys lawyer has learned or the persons from whom he has learned such facts or the existence or nonexistence of documents

even though the documents themselves may not be subject to

discovery citing Ford v Philips Elecs Instruments Co 82 FKD 359 360 (ED Pa 1979)

Work product privilege is intended to protect an attorneys strategies and legal

impressions [I]t does not protect facts concerning the creation of work product or

facts contained within work productThus a party may properly inquire into the

identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts Id at 894 It

is evident from the documents that were produced that there were telephone

conversations between Ms Muir and numerous people including Larry Stewart

William Hearon Peter Goldman-the attorney for Judge Watson-and the other

attorneys that were the subject of this inquiry (See Bate stamped documents

01446-01454 01538 01543 01583) As noted in our motion Larry Stewart

admitted having phone conversations with John T Berry Legal Division of the

Florida Bar On November 20 2013 he and William Hearon wrote Mr Berry and

advised Based on information that the undersigned has received from Bar staff

counsel Laura M Watson may escape prosecution for numerous findings of

unethical conductAs explained to us by staff counsel in the Broward County

office the Bar is allegedly not authorized to prosecute a grievance against a judge

even for conduct preceding the judgeship and the Judicial Qualification

commission will likewise decline to prosecute the matter since the conduct did not

occur while Ms Watson was a judge (Bate stamped documents 01458-01461) It

should be noted that this letter was sent to many individuals known to be members

of the Bar but who were not on the Grievance Committee (as noted in 01443) and

who appear to have no connection to these proceedings These include Gwynne

A Young Esq Eugene K Pettis Esq Lorna E Browne-Burton Esq Walter G

Campbell Jr Esq Jay Cohen Esq2 Gregory W Coleman Esq Gary S lesser

Esq David C Prather Esq Juliet M Roulhac Esq Michelle R Suskauer Esq

(Bate stamped 01461) In a letter of May 16 2012 Larry Stewart recommended

that [s]hould the Committee have any questions about the foregoing please do not

hesitate to contact me (Bate stamped 01508-01510)

Ms Muir has a tremendous amount of information relevant to this matter

Conversations with individuals in which there is no attorney client privilege are

relevant and necessary It is not grounds for objection that the information sought

2 Jay Cohen was on the Grievance Conunittee but stepped down due to a conflict

will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably

calculated to lead to discoverable evidence FlaRCivP 1280(b)(1) Judge

Watsons affirmative defenses include (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction (2)

that the JQC failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action (3)

that the statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired (4) that the JQC is guilty of laches (5) that the JQC does not have

standing to investigate and hear matters for alleged violations of the Florida Bar

Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney and not a sitting judge (6) that the

Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers (Exhibit C)

The affidavit of Ms Muir filed in support of the Bars motion actually raises

more issues which are relevant to this action and discoverable In paragraph five of

the affidavit she states Subsequent to the finding of probable cause by the

Grievance Committee Respondent was elected to the Circuit Bench in the

Seventeenth Circuit and the Bar disciplinary proceedings pending against

Respondent were placed on monitor status (emphasis supplied) (Muirs

affidavit is marked as Exhibit A to the Bars motion) Despite our best efforts

we have been unable to find any Bar rule that allows references or explains the

monitor status concept Yet as shown by the privilege log even after Judge

Watson won the election and took the bench The Florida Bar continued to

investigate Judge Watson There are twice as many work product documents on

the privilege log after Judge Watsons November 6 2013 election than were

created between May of 2008 - November 6 2013 There are thirty work

product documents between November 14 2013 and December 5 2013 Simply

put it appears that the entire first year that Judge Watson has been on the bench

The Florida Bar has continued to investigate her

The fact that Ms Muir is the attorney for The Bar does not shield her from

being deposed Despite the claim by Ms Muir that [s]he has no involvement in

the instant JQC investigation or disciplinary proceedings (affidavit par 7)

involvement in the proceedings is not the issue Muir has knowledge of the

underlying facts which form the basis of the JQC complaint Not only is Ms Muir

a witness to these proceedings she is a material witness A material witness is

defined as one who possesses information going to some fact affecting the merits

of the cause and about which no other witness might testify Nucci v Simmons 20

So3d 388 390 (Fla 2d DCA 2009) citing Sardinas v Lagares 805 So2d 1024

1026 (Fla 3d 2001) The numerous conversations she had with the Complainants

alone make her testimony needed and Judge Watson anticipates that this evidence

will support one or more of her affirmative defenses As state previously work

product privilege does not apply to conversations an attorney has with a witness

Grinell Corp at 887 Further the Court in Nucci held that there is no absolute

prohibition to deposing opposing counsel even in during the ongoing litigation

Nucci at 391

Respectfully submitted SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Defendants 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By shyROBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by e-mail on this 17 day of January 2014 to The Honorable Laura M

Watson (jwatsonl7thfiacutecourtsorg Ituckerl7thflcourtsorg) 201 SE 6th Street

Rm 1005B Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 Miles A McGrane III Esquire

(milesmcgranelawcom lisamcgranelawcom) The McGrane Law Firm

Special Counsel 2103 Country Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Suite 1612

cases interpreting the United States Supreme Court case ofHickman v Taylor 329

US 495 67 SCt 385 91 LEd 451 (1947)

[T]he work product concept furnishes no shield against discovery by interrogatories or by deposition of the facts that the adverse

partys lawyer has learned or the persons from whom he has learned such facts or the existence or nonexistence of documents

even though the documents themselves may not be subject to

discovery citing Ford v Philips Elecs Instruments Co 82 FKD 359 360 (ED Pa 1979)

Work product privilege is intended to protect an attorneys strategies and legal

impressions [I]t does not protect facts concerning the creation of work product or

facts contained within work productThus a party may properly inquire into the

identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts Id at 894 It

is evident from the documents that were produced that there were telephone

conversations between Ms Muir and numerous people including Larry Stewart

William Hearon Peter Goldman-the attorney for Judge Watson-and the other

attorneys that were the subject of this inquiry (See Bate stamped documents

01446-01454 01538 01543 01583) As noted in our motion Larry Stewart

admitted having phone conversations with John T Berry Legal Division of the

Florida Bar On November 20 2013 he and William Hearon wrote Mr Berry and

advised Based on information that the undersigned has received from Bar staff

counsel Laura M Watson may escape prosecution for numerous findings of

unethical conductAs explained to us by staff counsel in the Broward County

office the Bar is allegedly not authorized to prosecute a grievance against a judge

even for conduct preceding the judgeship and the Judicial Qualification

commission will likewise decline to prosecute the matter since the conduct did not

occur while Ms Watson was a judge (Bate stamped documents 01458-01461) It

should be noted that this letter was sent to many individuals known to be members

of the Bar but who were not on the Grievance Committee (as noted in 01443) and

who appear to have no connection to these proceedings These include Gwynne

A Young Esq Eugene K Pettis Esq Lorna E Browne-Burton Esq Walter G

Campbell Jr Esq Jay Cohen Esq2 Gregory W Coleman Esq Gary S lesser

Esq David C Prather Esq Juliet M Roulhac Esq Michelle R Suskauer Esq

(Bate stamped 01461) In a letter of May 16 2012 Larry Stewart recommended

that [s]hould the Committee have any questions about the foregoing please do not

hesitate to contact me (Bate stamped 01508-01510)

Ms Muir has a tremendous amount of information relevant to this matter

Conversations with individuals in which there is no attorney client privilege are

relevant and necessary It is not grounds for objection that the information sought

2 Jay Cohen was on the Grievance Conunittee but stepped down due to a conflict

will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably

calculated to lead to discoverable evidence FlaRCivP 1280(b)(1) Judge

Watsons affirmative defenses include (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction (2)

that the JQC failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action (3)

that the statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired (4) that the JQC is guilty of laches (5) that the JQC does not have

standing to investigate and hear matters for alleged violations of the Florida Bar

Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney and not a sitting judge (6) that the

Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers (Exhibit C)

The affidavit of Ms Muir filed in support of the Bars motion actually raises

more issues which are relevant to this action and discoverable In paragraph five of

the affidavit she states Subsequent to the finding of probable cause by the

Grievance Committee Respondent was elected to the Circuit Bench in the

Seventeenth Circuit and the Bar disciplinary proceedings pending against

Respondent were placed on monitor status (emphasis supplied) (Muirs

affidavit is marked as Exhibit A to the Bars motion) Despite our best efforts

we have been unable to find any Bar rule that allows references or explains the

monitor status concept Yet as shown by the privilege log even after Judge

Watson won the election and took the bench The Florida Bar continued to

investigate Judge Watson There are twice as many work product documents on

the privilege log after Judge Watsons November 6 2013 election than were

created between May of 2008 - November 6 2013 There are thirty work

product documents between November 14 2013 and December 5 2013 Simply

put it appears that the entire first year that Judge Watson has been on the bench

The Florida Bar has continued to investigate her

The fact that Ms Muir is the attorney for The Bar does not shield her from

being deposed Despite the claim by Ms Muir that [s]he has no involvement in

the instant JQC investigation or disciplinary proceedings (affidavit par 7)

involvement in the proceedings is not the issue Muir has knowledge of the

underlying facts which form the basis of the JQC complaint Not only is Ms Muir

a witness to these proceedings she is a material witness A material witness is

defined as one who possesses information going to some fact affecting the merits

of the cause and about which no other witness might testify Nucci v Simmons 20

So3d 388 390 (Fla 2d DCA 2009) citing Sardinas v Lagares 805 So2d 1024

1026 (Fla 3d 2001) The numerous conversations she had with the Complainants

alone make her testimony needed and Judge Watson anticipates that this evidence

will support one or more of her affirmative defenses As state previously work

product privilege does not apply to conversations an attorney has with a witness

Grinell Corp at 887 Further the Court in Nucci held that there is no absolute

prohibition to deposing opposing counsel even in during the ongoing litigation

Nucci at 391

Respectfully submitted SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Defendants 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By shyROBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by e-mail on this 17 day of January 2014 to The Honorable Laura M

Watson (jwatsonl7thfiacutecourtsorg Ituckerl7thflcourtsorg) 201 SE 6th Street

Rm 1005B Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 Miles A McGrane III Esquire

(milesmcgranelawcom lisamcgranelawcom) The McGrane Law Firm

Special Counsel 2103 Country Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Suite 1612

counsel Laura M Watson may escape prosecution for numerous findings of

unethical conductAs explained to us by staff counsel in the Broward County

office the Bar is allegedly not authorized to prosecute a grievance against a judge

even for conduct preceding the judgeship and the Judicial Qualification

commission will likewise decline to prosecute the matter since the conduct did not

occur while Ms Watson was a judge (Bate stamped documents 01458-01461) It

should be noted that this letter was sent to many individuals known to be members

of the Bar but who were not on the Grievance Committee (as noted in 01443) and

who appear to have no connection to these proceedings These include Gwynne

A Young Esq Eugene K Pettis Esq Lorna E Browne-Burton Esq Walter G

Campbell Jr Esq Jay Cohen Esq2 Gregory W Coleman Esq Gary S lesser

Esq David C Prather Esq Juliet M Roulhac Esq Michelle R Suskauer Esq

(Bate stamped 01461) In a letter of May 16 2012 Larry Stewart recommended

that [s]hould the Committee have any questions about the foregoing please do not

hesitate to contact me (Bate stamped 01508-01510)

Ms Muir has a tremendous amount of information relevant to this matter

Conversations with individuals in which there is no attorney client privilege are

relevant and necessary It is not grounds for objection that the information sought

2 Jay Cohen was on the Grievance Conunittee but stepped down due to a conflict

will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably

calculated to lead to discoverable evidence FlaRCivP 1280(b)(1) Judge

Watsons affirmative defenses include (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction (2)

that the JQC failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action (3)

that the statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired (4) that the JQC is guilty of laches (5) that the JQC does not have

standing to investigate and hear matters for alleged violations of the Florida Bar

Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney and not a sitting judge (6) that the

Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers (Exhibit C)

The affidavit of Ms Muir filed in support of the Bars motion actually raises

more issues which are relevant to this action and discoverable In paragraph five of

the affidavit she states Subsequent to the finding of probable cause by the

Grievance Committee Respondent was elected to the Circuit Bench in the

Seventeenth Circuit and the Bar disciplinary proceedings pending against

Respondent were placed on monitor status (emphasis supplied) (Muirs

affidavit is marked as Exhibit A to the Bars motion) Despite our best efforts

we have been unable to find any Bar rule that allows references or explains the

monitor status concept Yet as shown by the privilege log even after Judge

Watson won the election and took the bench The Florida Bar continued to

investigate Judge Watson There are twice as many work product documents on

the privilege log after Judge Watsons November 6 2013 election than were

created between May of 2008 - November 6 2013 There are thirty work

product documents between November 14 2013 and December 5 2013 Simply

put it appears that the entire first year that Judge Watson has been on the bench

The Florida Bar has continued to investigate her

The fact that Ms Muir is the attorney for The Bar does not shield her from

being deposed Despite the claim by Ms Muir that [s]he has no involvement in

the instant JQC investigation or disciplinary proceedings (affidavit par 7)

involvement in the proceedings is not the issue Muir has knowledge of the

underlying facts which form the basis of the JQC complaint Not only is Ms Muir

a witness to these proceedings she is a material witness A material witness is

defined as one who possesses information going to some fact affecting the merits

of the cause and about which no other witness might testify Nucci v Simmons 20

So3d 388 390 (Fla 2d DCA 2009) citing Sardinas v Lagares 805 So2d 1024

1026 (Fla 3d 2001) The numerous conversations she had with the Complainants

alone make her testimony needed and Judge Watson anticipates that this evidence

will support one or more of her affirmative defenses As state previously work

product privilege does not apply to conversations an attorney has with a witness

Grinell Corp at 887 Further the Court in Nucci held that there is no absolute

prohibition to deposing opposing counsel even in during the ongoing litigation

Nucci at 391

Respectfully submitted SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Defendants 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By shyROBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by e-mail on this 17 day of January 2014 to The Honorable Laura M

Watson (jwatsonl7thfiacutecourtsorg Ituckerl7thflcourtsorg) 201 SE 6th Street

Rm 1005B Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 Miles A McGrane III Esquire

(milesmcgranelawcom lisamcgranelawcom) The McGrane Law Firm

Special Counsel 2103 Country Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Suite 1612

will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably

calculated to lead to discoverable evidence FlaRCivP 1280(b)(1) Judge

Watsons affirmative defenses include (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction (2)

that the JQC failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action (3)

that the statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired (4) that the JQC is guilty of laches (5) that the JQC does not have

standing to investigate and hear matters for alleged violations of the Florida Bar

Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney and not a sitting judge (6) that the

Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers (Exhibit C)

The affidavit of Ms Muir filed in support of the Bars motion actually raises

more issues which are relevant to this action and discoverable In paragraph five of

the affidavit she states Subsequent to the finding of probable cause by the

Grievance Committee Respondent was elected to the Circuit Bench in the

Seventeenth Circuit and the Bar disciplinary proceedings pending against

Respondent were placed on monitor status (emphasis supplied) (Muirs

affidavit is marked as Exhibit A to the Bars motion) Despite our best efforts

we have been unable to find any Bar rule that allows references or explains the

monitor status concept Yet as shown by the privilege log even after Judge

Watson won the election and took the bench The Florida Bar continued to

investigate Judge Watson There are twice as many work product documents on

the privilege log after Judge Watsons November 6 2013 election than were

created between May of 2008 - November 6 2013 There are thirty work

product documents between November 14 2013 and December 5 2013 Simply

put it appears that the entire first year that Judge Watson has been on the bench

The Florida Bar has continued to investigate her

The fact that Ms Muir is the attorney for The Bar does not shield her from

being deposed Despite the claim by Ms Muir that [s]he has no involvement in

the instant JQC investigation or disciplinary proceedings (affidavit par 7)

involvement in the proceedings is not the issue Muir has knowledge of the

underlying facts which form the basis of the JQC complaint Not only is Ms Muir

a witness to these proceedings she is a material witness A material witness is

defined as one who possesses information going to some fact affecting the merits

of the cause and about which no other witness might testify Nucci v Simmons 20

So3d 388 390 (Fla 2d DCA 2009) citing Sardinas v Lagares 805 So2d 1024

1026 (Fla 3d 2001) The numerous conversations she had with the Complainants

alone make her testimony needed and Judge Watson anticipates that this evidence

will support one or more of her affirmative defenses As state previously work

product privilege does not apply to conversations an attorney has with a witness

Grinell Corp at 887 Further the Court in Nucci held that there is no absolute

prohibition to deposing opposing counsel even in during the ongoing litigation

Nucci at 391

Respectfully submitted SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Defendants 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By shyROBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by e-mail on this 17 day of January 2014 to The Honorable Laura M

Watson (jwatsonl7thfiacutecourtsorg Ituckerl7thflcourtsorg) 201 SE 6th Street

Rm 1005B Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 Miles A McGrane III Esquire

(milesmcgranelawcom lisamcgranelawcom) The McGrane Law Firm

Special Counsel 2103 Country Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Suite 1612

Watson won the election and took the bench The Florida Bar continued to

investigate Judge Watson There are twice as many work product documents on

the privilege log after Judge Watsons November 6 2013 election than were

created between May of 2008 - November 6 2013 There are thirty work

product documents between November 14 2013 and December 5 2013 Simply

put it appears that the entire first year that Judge Watson has been on the bench

The Florida Bar has continued to investigate her

The fact that Ms Muir is the attorney for The Bar does not shield her from

being deposed Despite the claim by Ms Muir that [s]he has no involvement in

the instant JQC investigation or disciplinary proceedings (affidavit par 7)

involvement in the proceedings is not the issue Muir has knowledge of the

underlying facts which form the basis of the JQC complaint Not only is Ms Muir

a witness to these proceedings she is a material witness A material witness is

defined as one who possesses information going to some fact affecting the merits

of the cause and about which no other witness might testify Nucci v Simmons 20

So3d 388 390 (Fla 2d DCA 2009) citing Sardinas v Lagares 805 So2d 1024

1026 (Fla 3d 2001) The numerous conversations she had with the Complainants

alone make her testimony needed and Judge Watson anticipates that this evidence

will support one or more of her affirmative defenses As state previously work

product privilege does not apply to conversations an attorney has with a witness

Grinell Corp at 887 Further the Court in Nucci held that there is no absolute

prohibition to deposing opposing counsel even in during the ongoing litigation

Nucci at 391

Respectfully submitted SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Defendants 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By shyROBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by e-mail on this 17 day of January 2014 to The Honorable Laura M

Watson (jwatsonl7thfiacutecourtsorg Ituckerl7thflcourtsorg) 201 SE 6th Street

Rm 1005B Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 Miles A McGrane III Esquire

(milesmcgranelawcom lisamcgranelawcom) The McGrane Law Firm

Special Counsel 2103 Country Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Suite 1612

product privilege does not apply to conversations an attorney has with a witness

Grinell Corp at 887 Further the Court in Nucci held that there is no absolute

prohibition to deposing opposing counsel even in during the ongoing litigation

Nucci at 391

Respectfully submitted SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Defendants 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By shyROBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by e-mail on this 17 day of January 2014 to The Honorable Laura M

Watson (jwatsonl7thfiacutecourtsorg Ituckerl7thflcourtsorg) 201 SE 6th Street

Rm 1005B Ft Lauderdale FL 33301 Miles A McGrane III Esquire

(milesmcgranelawcom lisamcgranelawcom) The McGrane Law Firm

Special Counsel 2103 Country Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Suite 1612

9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 1612 Miami Florida 33156 (Email

RossGirtenLaurilawcom SusieLaurilawcom) Michael L Schneider

Esquire mschneiderfloridajqccom General Counsel 1110 Thomasville Road

Tallahassee Florida 32303 Henry M Coxe III Esquire Bedell Dittmar

DeVault Pillans amp Coxe PA Atty for Florida Bar 101 East Adams Street

Jacksonville Florida 32202 (Telephone 904-353-0211 Eshy

Mailhmcbedellfirmcom) Melissa W Nelson Esquire McGuire Woods LLP

Atty for Florida Bar 50 N Laura Street Suite 3300 Jacksonville FL 32202

(Telephone904-798-3200Email MNelsonmeguirewoodscom)

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by e-mail to The

Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S

Beach Street Daytona Beach Florida 32114

SWEETAPPLE BROEKER amp VARKAS PL Attorneys for Judge Laura M Watson 20 SE 3d Street Boca Raton Florida 33432 Telephone (561) 392-1230 E-Mailpleadingssweetapplelawcom

By 1(OBERT A SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No 0296988 ALEXANDER D VARKAS JR Florida Bar No 0563048

Cynthia Bailey

From Robert Sweetapple Sent Wednesday January 08 2014 1211 PM To Henry Coxe Cc Miles A McGrane Laura Watson Cynthia Bailey Subject Re JQC Watson

Follow Up Flag Follow up Flag Status Completed

Thanks Hank I called this AM but you were out I am re noticing Ms Muir for deposition in Ft Laud for January 16 at 130 PM Please provide all documents to which you claim a privilege to the Chair Judge Evander so that he can review them prior to our scheduled status conference on January 15 Mr McGrane and I previously cleared this date for potential depositions If it is no longer available I will request an extension as obviously the privilege issue should be determined prior to the deposition Regards Bob

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 7 2014 at 612 PM Henry Coxe ltHMCbedellfirmcomgt wrote

Bob -- attached is the privilege log Can we talk in the morning We do need to discuss the deposition scope and entitlement to take it

Thanks

Hank

ltIMAGEpnggt

HENRY M COXE 111 BOARD CERTIFIED CRIMINAL TRIAL LAWYER

BEDELL DITTMAR DEVAULT PILLANS amp COXE PA Phone (904) 353-0211 x137 | Fax (904) 353-9307 | hmcbedellfirmcom The Bedell Building i 101 East Adams Street | Jacksonville Florida 32202

EXHIBIT

This e-mail is from a law firm Bedell Dittmar DeVault Pillans amp Coxe PA and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed If you believe you received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else Ifyou are not an existing client of ours do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to us in reply that you would expect us to hold in confidence Ifyou properly received this e-mail as a client co-counsel or retained expert of ours you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attomeyshyclient or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality

ltWatson privilege log5 to turn over_1pdfgt

2

ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE BY THE FLORIDA BAR Regarding The Florida Bar File No 2008-51564 (17B)

DATE To From Description Privilege Asserted

5808 Don Spangler Internal handwritten notes Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

5-13-08 Branch Bar Theodore Internal Memorandum Work Product Counsel Littlewood

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

6-11-08 AAP William Flannagan Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

6-26-08 File Michele Wright internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-6-09 AAP Kenneth Marvin Internai Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

6-7-12 File Ghenete Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product Muir

Confidential pursuant to Florida

Bar Rules 3-71

7-17-12 File Ghenete Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product Muir

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

7-20-12 File M Casco Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

7-20-12 E Sanchez M Casco Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 Flie E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-15-12 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internai casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-19-12 File Grievance

Committee GC Disposition Sheet Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-14-12 File Angela J Brown internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Michele Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Holly Carullo internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Kenneth L Marvin Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 File Ghenete Wright internal casenote to file Work Product

Muir Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 Adele Stone Michael Greenberg Internal e-mail Work Product Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright Confidential pursuant to Florida Muir Bar Rules 3-71

Emily Sanchez 11-16-12 Kenneth Marvin Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida

Bar Rules 3-71

11-20-12 Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright

Muir

i Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 John T Berry Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal and Emily Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 Ghenete Wright

Muir Alan Pascal and Emily

Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Dec 12 Ghenete Wright Muir and Adria Quintela

Cheryl Soler Paralegal

Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-6-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-13-12 Adele Stone Jay

Cohen Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Adria Quintela Internal email Attorney-client

Pascal Emily Sanchez Alice Cuellar

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-14-12 Adria Quintela

Alice Cuellar Alan Pascal Emily

Sanchez Ghenete Wright Muir

Adele Stone Internal email Attorney-client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-21-12 File EmilySanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-14-13 Emily Sanchez Alan Pascal internal e-mail Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-30-13 Michele Wright Holly Carullo Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-31-13 AEQ K Marvin Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-18-13 File

6-11-13 John T Berry Ken Marvin Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Pascal EmilySanchez

7-29-13 Emily Sanchez

8-19-13 Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal Emily Sanchez

10-13-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

Michele Wright

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright Muir

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Internal casenote to file

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal email

Internal email

Internal email

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Attorney-client

Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE BY THE FLORIDA BAR Regarding The Florida Bar File No 2008-51564 (17B)

DATE To From Description Privilege Asserted

5808 Don Spangler Internal handwritten notes Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

5-13-08 Branch Bar Theodore Internal Memorandum Work Product Counsel Littlewood

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

6-11-08 AAP William Flannagan Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

6-26-08 File Michele Wright internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-6-09 AAP Kenneth Marvin Internai Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

6-7-12 File Ghenete Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product Muir

Confidential pursuant to Florida

Bar Rules 3-71

7-17-12 File Ghenete Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product Muir

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

7-20-12 File M Casco Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

7-20-12 E Sanchez M Casco Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 Flie E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-15-12 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internai casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-19-12 File Grievance

Committee GC Disposition Sheet Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-14-12 File Angela J Brown internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Michele Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Holly Carullo internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Kenneth L Marvin Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 File Ghenete Wright internal casenote to file Work Product

Muir Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 Adele Stone Michael Greenberg Internal e-mail Work Product Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright Confidential pursuant to Florida Muir Bar Rules 3-71

Emily Sanchez 11-16-12 Kenneth Marvin Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida

Bar Rules 3-71

11-20-12 Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright

Muir

i Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 John T Berry Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal and Emily Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 Ghenete Wright

Muir Alan Pascal and Emily

Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Dec 12 Ghenete Wright Muir and Adria Quintela

Cheryl Soler Paralegal

Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-6-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-13-12 Adele Stone Jay

Cohen Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Adria Quintela Internal email Attorney-client

Pascal Emily Sanchez Alice Cuellar

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-14-12 Adria Quintela

Alice Cuellar Alan Pascal Emily

Sanchez Ghenete Wright Muir

Adele Stone Internal email Attorney-client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-21-12 File EmilySanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-14-13 Emily Sanchez Alan Pascal internal e-mail Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-30-13 Michele Wright Holly Carullo Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-31-13 AEQ K Marvin Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-18-13 File

6-11-13 John T Berry Ken Marvin Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Pascal EmilySanchez

7-29-13 Emily Sanchez

8-19-13 Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal Emily Sanchez

10-13-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

Michele Wright

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright Muir

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Internal casenote to file

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal email

Internal email

Internal email

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Attorney-client

Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Bar Rules 3-71

7-17-12 File Ghenete Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product Muir

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

7-20-12 File M Casco Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

7-20-12 E Sanchez M Casco Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File Emily Sanchez internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 Flie E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-15-12 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internai casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-19-12 File Grievance

Committee GC Disposition Sheet Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-14-12 File Angela J Brown internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Michele Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Holly Carullo internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Kenneth L Marvin Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 File Ghenete Wright internal casenote to file Work Product

Muir Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 Adele Stone Michael Greenberg Internal e-mail Work Product Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright Confidential pursuant to Florida Muir Bar Rules 3-71

Emily Sanchez 11-16-12 Kenneth Marvin Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida

Bar Rules 3-71

11-20-12 Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright

Muir

i Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 John T Berry Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal and Emily Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 Ghenete Wright

Muir Alan Pascal and Emily

Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Dec 12 Ghenete Wright Muir and Adria Quintela

Cheryl Soler Paralegal

Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-6-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-13-12 Adele Stone Jay

Cohen Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Adria Quintela Internal email Attorney-client

Pascal Emily Sanchez Alice Cuellar

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-14-12 Adria Quintela

Alice Cuellar Alan Pascal Emily

Sanchez Ghenete Wright Muir

Adele Stone Internal email Attorney-client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-21-12 File EmilySanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-14-13 Emily Sanchez Alan Pascal internal e-mail Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-30-13 Michele Wright Holly Carullo Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-31-13 AEQ K Marvin Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-18-13 File

6-11-13 John T Berry Ken Marvin Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Pascal EmilySanchez

7-29-13 Emily Sanchez

8-19-13 Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal Emily Sanchez

10-13-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

Michele Wright

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright Muir

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Internal casenote to file

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal email

Internal email

Internal email

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Attorney-client

Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 File E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-12-12 Flie E Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-15-12 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internai casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

10-19-12 File Grievance

Committee GC Disposition Sheet Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-14-12 File Angela J Brown internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Michele Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Holly Carullo internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Kenneth L Marvin Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 File Ghenete Wright internal casenote to file Work Product

Muir Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 Adele Stone Michael Greenberg Internal e-mail Work Product Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright Confidential pursuant to Florida Muir Bar Rules 3-71

Emily Sanchez 11-16-12 Kenneth Marvin Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida

Bar Rules 3-71

11-20-12 Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright

Muir

i Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 John T Berry Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal and Emily Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 Ghenete Wright

Muir Alan Pascal and Emily

Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Dec 12 Ghenete Wright Muir and Adria Quintela

Cheryl Soler Paralegal

Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-6-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-13-12 Adele Stone Jay

Cohen Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Adria Quintela Internal email Attorney-client

Pascal Emily Sanchez Alice Cuellar

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-14-12 Adria Quintela

Alice Cuellar Alan Pascal Emily

Sanchez Ghenete Wright Muir

Adele Stone Internal email Attorney-client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-21-12 File EmilySanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-14-13 Emily Sanchez Alan Pascal internal e-mail Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-30-13 Michele Wright Holly Carullo Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-31-13 AEQ K Marvin Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-18-13 File

6-11-13 John T Berry Ken Marvin Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Pascal EmilySanchez

7-29-13 Emily Sanchez

8-19-13 Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal Emily Sanchez

10-13-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

Michele Wright

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright Muir

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Internal casenote to file

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal email

Internal email

Internal email

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Attorney-client

Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

11-14-12 File Angela J Brown internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Michele Wright Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Holly Carullo internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-15-12 File Kenneth L Marvin Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 File Ghenete Wright internal casenote to file Work Product

Muir Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-16-12 Adele Stone Michael Greenberg Internal e-mail Work Product Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright Confidential pursuant to Florida Muir Bar Rules 3-71

Emily Sanchez 11-16-12 Kenneth Marvin Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida

Bar Rules 3-71

11-20-12 Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright

Muir

i Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 John T Berry Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal and Emily Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 Ghenete Wright

Muir Alan Pascal and Emily

Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Dec 12 Ghenete Wright Muir and Adria Quintela

Cheryl Soler Paralegal

Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-6-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-13-12 Adele Stone Jay

Cohen Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Adria Quintela Internal email Attorney-client

Pascal Emily Sanchez Alice Cuellar

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-14-12 Adria Quintela

Alice Cuellar Alan Pascal Emily

Sanchez Ghenete Wright Muir

Adele Stone Internal email Attorney-client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-21-12 File EmilySanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-14-13 Emily Sanchez Alan Pascal internal e-mail Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-30-13 Michele Wright Holly Carullo Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-31-13 AEQ K Marvin Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-18-13 File

6-11-13 John T Berry Ken Marvin Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Pascal EmilySanchez

7-29-13 Emily Sanchez

8-19-13 Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal Emily Sanchez

10-13-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

Michele Wright

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright Muir

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Internal casenote to file

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal email

Internal email

Internal email

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Attorney-client

Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Bar Rules 3-71

11-20-12 Adria Quintela Ghenete Wright

Muir

i Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 John T Berry Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal and Emily Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

11-27-12 Ghenete Wright

Muir Alan Pascal and Emily

Sanchez

Adria Quintela Internal e-mail Attorney-Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Dec 12 Ghenete Wright Muir and Adria Quintela

Cheryl Soler Paralegal

Internal Memorandum Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-6-12 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-13-12 Adele Stone Jay

Cohen Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Adria Quintela Internal email Attorney-client

Pascal Emily Sanchez Alice Cuellar

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-14-12 Adria Quintela

Alice Cuellar Alan Pascal Emily

Sanchez Ghenete Wright Muir

Adele Stone Internal email Attorney-client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-21-12 File EmilySanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-14-13 Emily Sanchez Alan Pascal internal e-mail Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-30-13 Michele Wright Holly Carullo Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-31-13 AEQ K Marvin Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-18-13 File

6-11-13 John T Berry Ken Marvin Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Pascal EmilySanchez

7-29-13 Emily Sanchez

8-19-13 Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal Emily Sanchez

10-13-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

Michele Wright

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright Muir

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Internal casenote to file

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal email

Internal email

Internal email

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Attorney-client

Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Pascal Emily Sanchez Alice Cuellar

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-14-12 Adria Quintela

Alice Cuellar Alan Pascal Emily

Sanchez Ghenete Wright Muir

Adele Stone Internal email Attorney-client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

12-21-12 File EmilySanchez Internal casenote to file Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-14-13 Emily Sanchez Alan Pascal internal e-mail Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-30-13 Michele Wright Holly Carullo Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

1-31-13 AEQ K Marvin Internal e-mail Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

4-18-13 File

6-11-13 John T Berry Ken Marvin Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Pascal EmilySanchez

7-29-13 Emily Sanchez

8-19-13 Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal Emily Sanchez

10-13-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

Michele Wright

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright Muir

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Internal casenote to file

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal email

Internal email

Internal email

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Attorney-client

Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

4-18-13 File

6-11-13 John T Berry Ken Marvin Ghenete Wright Muir Alan

Pascal EmilySanchez

7-29-13 Emily Sanchez

8-19-13 Ghenete Wright Muir Alan Pascal Emily Sanchez

10-13-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

10-24-13 Emily Sanchez

Michele Wright

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright Muir

Adria Quintela

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Muir

Ghenete Wright

Internal casenote to file

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal e-mail

Internal email

Internal email

Internal email

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Attorney-client

Work Product

confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

11-21-13 File

Muir

Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright

Muir

Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

11-22-13 File Ghenete Wright Muir internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Work Product

12-4-13 File Alan Pascal Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

12-5-13 File Emily Sanchez Internal casenote to file

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71 Attorney Client

Work Product

Confidential pursuant to Florida Bar Rules 3-71

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Electronically Filed O9252013 014138 PM ET

RECElVED9252013 134341 Thomas D Hall Clerk Supreme Coun

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF JUDGE LAURA NL WATSON TO JQCS NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES

Judge Laura M Watson hereby answers the JQCs Notice ofFormal Charges and

alleges as follows

1 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 1 ofthe Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 the firm of Laura M Watson PA dba Watson and Lentner

(Watson PA) represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits and that

firm maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks knowledge

as to the alleged exact legal status of the other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types ofclients prior to 2002

2 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that since 1998 Watson PA represented health care providers in numerous lawsuits

EXHIBIT

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

against Progressive Insurance Company and other insurance companies and that

Watson PA maintained its own clients and files Watson PA avers that it lacks

knowledge as to the exact legal status ofthe other named firms but believes that they

represented health care providers and other types of clients in various types of cases

including cases against Progressive Insurance Company prior to 2002

3 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA solicited health care providers in 2002 and that these solicitations

were approved by the Florida Bar Watson PA does not have any records in its

possession which would show the number ofhealth care provider clients the firm or

other firms represented in 2002 or the number of claims for unpaid bills and

associated attorneys fees against Progressive Insurance Company at that time

4 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations therein Watson PA never hired Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

William C Hearon PA and Todd S Stewart PA (Stewart Lawyers) to handle

bad faith claims or for any reason at any time The agreements Watson PA had

with its health care providers did not authorize the firm to pursue a bad faith claim

(See Exhibit A which is an example of such a contract)

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

5 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 5 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson avers

that such bad faith claims were filed in Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba

Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance Company et al

Case no CA-01011649 (Goldcoast) The Goldcoast suit began as a single-

plaintiff action against Progressive filed by the firm of Slawson Cunningham

Whalen amp Stewart in November 2001 which alleged violations of Florida Statutes

sectsect 624155 6269541 violations of the Federal RICO statute violations of 18 USC

sect1962(d) and violations of the State RICO statute The Goldcoast suit was

envisioned only as a single-plaintiff action Watson PA was co-counsel to this

action

6 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA was co-counsel to the Goldcoast action and that it was contemplated

that the clients would receive 60 ofthe recovery in the case ofFishman amp Stashak

MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive Bayside Insurance

Company et al and the attomeys who were counsel in that case would receive

attorneys fees in the amount of 40 to be made on the basis of time and effort

expended by each attorney which was estimated to be 60 for the Stewart Lawyers

3

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Among the express written agreements were the retainer contracts for the 37 clients

that were represented in the Goldcoast bad faith case that all included the following

second paragraph

It is contemplated by the parties that PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY andor any of its divisions subsidiaries affiliates or related companies may propose a settlement that could include the resolution of claims filed pursuant to this Agreement and other claims that were not brought pursuant to this representation In such an event it is agreed that this Agreement shall not include that portion of any settlement that is attributable to those other claims or lawsuits including but not limited to contract benefits damages for breach of contract interest and any statutory attorneys fees that KANE amp KANE MARKS amp FLEISCHER PA LAURA WATSON PA dba WATSON amp LENNER would be due on such separate claims (See Exhibit B as an example of the contract)

7 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 7 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that the Goldcoast case encompassed a core group ofapproximately forty (40) health

care providers The Goldcoast suit was envisioned only as a single-plaintiffaction

and was filed as such by the firm of Slawson Cunningham Whalen amp Stewart in

November 2001 In July 2002 the Stewart Lawyers substituted in as counsel for the

Slawson firm and at that time made the decision to add approximately twelve (12)

additional health care providers In January 2003 the Stewart Lawyers made the

decision to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and added additional plaintiffs

4

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Ultimately the case had thirty-seven (37) plaintiffs Judge Watson denies that bad

faith claims were to be asserted on behalf of all of Watson PAs health care

providers

8 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Formal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that at the request of the Stewart Lawyers Watson PA provided a list of its health

care providers clients Judge Watson avers that this list was provided in order to

support an award for punitive damages pursuant to the bad faith statute by showing

that the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a

general business practice and these acts are (a) Willful wanton and malicious (b)

In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured or (c) In reckless disregard for the

rights of a beneficiary under a life insurance contract Fla Stat sect 624155(5)

9 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA worked diligently on the Goldcoast case but denies that the Stewart

Lawyers appeared as co-counsel on any individual cases handled by the firm

appeared at any depositions on these cases assisted in any discovery matters on the

PAs individual cases or entered into any written contracts for employment as coshy

counsel on behalf of any of the Watson PA clients other than the singular case of

5

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Fishman amp Stashak MD PA dba Goldcoast Orthopedics et al v Progressive

Bayside Insurance Company et al

10 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 10 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the Stewart Lawyers obtained a favorable ruling requiring disclosure of

discovery materials but denies that this ruling materially enhanced the strength of

the case Progressive had always offered all of the materials without a court ruling

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement Even after appeal any materials received

were to remain confidential

I 1 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 1 1 of the Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that there were any meaningfid settlement negotiations in January 2004 that

continued for the next several months

12 With respect to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Notice of

Formal Charges and without the benefit ofa more definite statement Judge Watson

admits that the Stewart Lawyers occasionally updated Watson PA and has no

personal knowledge as to the amount of communications with the other firms

13 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

6

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement and avers that Stewarts

consent was not needed to effectuate a settlement with Progressive After the

mediation between Progressive and the Stewart Lawyers Progressive felt the

Stewart Lawyers were disruptive counterproductive and less reasonable and

required that they not be present at this meeting Watson PA had entered into fee

contracts with their PIP clients authorizing them to pursue claims for PIP benefits

The firm was also co-counsel representing the Gold Coast plaintiffs Watson PA

always had the authority to negotiate and settle the claims for PIP benefits and the

bad faith case with or without the Stewart Lawyers permission and in fact prior to

May 14middot2004 had attempted to do so with Stewarts knowledge and encouragement

(See Exhibit C emails from Larry Stewart to Watson suggesting that the firm

should approach Progressive with a proposal to settle all disputes)

14 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA met with Progressive to discuss settlement but denies that

Stewarts consent was needed to effectuate a settlement Progressive gave each of

the three PIP firms its own confidential settlement offer These figures included

compensation for PIP benefits interest and fees and Progressive required a release

of all bad faith claims and a dismissal of the Goldcoast case Everyone involved

7

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

understood a deal could not be reached until the clients approved it The finn was

representing clients whose approval was needed to reach a settlement This May 14th

settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the clients

and is simply irrelevant

15 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 15 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Progressive

related to the terms proposed in the settlement The proposed settlement required

certain conditions to be met in order to become final and payment made to the

clients These terms could not be completed and the attempted settlement failed This

May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed to by the

clients and is simply irrelevant

16 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 16 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the initial Memorandum of Understanding which failed required the plaintiffs

in the Gold coast case to release Progressive Insurance Company and dismiss the

suit

17 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph I 7 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

8

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

that immediately the Stewart Lawyers were advised of the fact that settlement

discussions had occurred but that Progressive Insurance required the terms of the

settlement to remain confidential Judge Watson denies that the Stewart Lawyers

filed any legal objection to the proposed settlement but on May 28 2004 Larry

Stewart wrote the Goldcoast clients and advised them of the May 14th settlement

conference that occurred without his knowledge and requested that the clients

contact him related to this matter (See Exhibit D)

I 8 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that the May 14 settlement was never perfected never executed and never agreed

to by the clients Judge Watson avers that because of the irreconcilable conflicts of

interest Progressive was advised that there was no settlement and that the parties

would continue to litigate At some point Amir Fleischer co-counsel in the

Goldcoast bad faith action contacted Progressives counsel and began to negotiate

from scratch on behalf of the clients and the rest of the attorneys Judge Watson

denies that there was an arbitrary allocation ofsettlement funds

19 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that in June 2004 Progressive delivered a detailed offer to each of the PIP firms to

9

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

settle the pending unpaid PIP benefits and interest and unpaid PIP attorneys fees

and a specific offer to settle the Goldcoast bad faith case The Goldcoast settlement

was for $175 million dollars Judge Watson avers that the 400 clients were not

parties to the Goldcoast case and were entitled to those settlement proceeds As to

the non-Goldcoast PIP providers represented by Watson PA they received 100 of

their PIP benefits and interest along with releases from Progressive which was all

they were entitled to receive under the written contracts There is no dispute that the

clients accepted the settlement and that the settlement proceeds were distributed in

strict accordance to written client agreements The Stewart Lawyers accepted the

settlement and the funds generated by it that were available as fees

20 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

the allegations Watson PA disclosed the conflicts of interest that existed in the

settlement and provided a proper closing statement (See Exhibit E Notice of

Disagreement Between Counsel)

21 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received the settlement funds but denies that they were not properly

maintained according to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the various court

10

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

orders entered by the trial court As to the other attorneys Judge Watson lacks

knowledge as to the issues related to them

22 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson admits

that Watson PA received a notification regarding the settlement funds but denies

that the funds were not properly maintained and distributed according to the Florida

Bar Rules and the various court orders entered by the trial court As to the other

attorneys Judge Watson lacks knowledge as to the issues related to them

23 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

that Watson PA did not hold funds in trust or disbursed them in a manner contrary

to the Florida Bar Rules regulating trust accounts

24 With respect to the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofthe Notice ofFormal

Charges and without the benefit of a more definite statement Judge Watson denies

she violated any Florida Bar Rules or Canons of the Code ofJudicial Conduct

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefasjustice may

require

I 1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

25 As to her first affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that this action

is improper and should be dismissed because the Commission lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges and it has no jurisdiction to file formal charges against

Judge Watson in this case or to investigate an event that occurred ten years ago to

determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office when the allegations stem from

events in 2002-2004 when Watson was not a judge not a candidate for judge or

acting in a judicial capacity Judge Watson adopts the arguments more fully set out

in her separate motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 1

26 As to her second affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

failed to perform all conditions precedent to bringing this action in that the JQC did

not place Judge Watson and others similarly situated on notice of the rules which

apply to these proceedings did not provide her with substantive and procedural due

process as protected by the state and federal constitutions and did not follow the

procedures required by Rule 6 FJQCR governing the Investigative Panels

Previously Judge Watson filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which is pending before the Court This Answer is filed pursuant to the Courts order and in no way waives Judge Watsons right to be heard on the pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction or matters raised in any other motions

12

i

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

investigation and finding of probable cause Judge Watson adopts her previously

filed motion on this matter as if fully set forth herein

27 As to her third affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the Florida

Bars statute of limitations to bring formal charges against Watson as an attorney

has expired and each cause of action discipline action and claim had accrued

during the time that Watson was a practicing attorney within the time prescribed by

law for them to take action and they failed to timely bring a Bar Complaint against

Watson

28 As to her fourth affugravemative defense Judge Watson asserts that at all

times material hereto she acted in good faith belief that her actions in the referenced

litigation were ethical and proper and she relied upon the advice ofcounsel

29 As to her fifth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any orders

by the Florida Bar cannot be relied upon in this matter for any reason See The

Florida Bar v Calvo 630 So2d 548 (Fla 1993) The Florida Bar v Vining 707

So2d 670 (Fla 1998)

30 As to her sixth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that any

rulings in her favor from the trial court in the case Stewart Tilghman Fox amp Bianchi

PA William C Hearon P A and Todd S Stewart PA v Kane amp Kane Laura M

Watson PA et al case no 502004CA006138XXXXMBAO filed in the Circuit

13

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Court in and for Palm Beach County Florida is res judicata as to any claims against

Judge Watson as she was not found liable in that suit for any of the allegations

31 As to her seventh affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

Notice ofFormal charges fails to state a cause ofaction against her as was more fully

set forth in her previously filed motion to dismiss on that matter and she adopts those

arguments as if fully set forth herein

32 As to her eighth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

is guilty of laches and therefore this Notice ofFormal Charges must be dismissed

33 As to her ninth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

does not have standing to investigate and hear the matters set forth in the Notice of

Formal Charges All of the matters relate to events which occurred in 2002-2004

for alleged violations of the Florida Bar Rules when Judge Watson was an attorney

and was not a sittingjudge was not a candidate forjudicial office and was not acting

in a judicial capacity The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida

over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered

in the following manner The following entities are hereby designated as agencies

of the Supreme Court for this purpose with the following responsibilities

jurisdiction and powers The board of governors grievance committees and

referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers Rule 3-31 Rules Regulating the

14

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

Florida Bar These entities have the exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and conduct

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bar rules

34 As to her tenth affirmative defense Judge Watson asserts that the JQC

has exceeded its Constitutional authority and these proceedings violate Judge

Watsons substantive and procedural due process rights and the proceedings violate

the Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Judicial Administration and the Code of

Judicial Conduct which are designed to ensure a full and fair hearing

35 As to her eleventh affmuative defense Judge Watson asserts that the

this Notice of Formal Charges is being used for an improper purpose as a tactical

advantage to assist the Stewart Lawyers in other pending litigation and the

allegations are related to a dispute between attorneys as to the appropriate amount

of fees which is not a proper subject for these proceedings

WHEREFORE Judge Watson asks this court to dismiss the Notice of

Formal Charges with prejudice together with such other further reliefas justice may

require

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6 Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907

15

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16

jwatsonl7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq miles(Smcaranelawcom

lisa(Smcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel One Datran

Center Ste 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Lauri

Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom Counsel to the Hearing Panel of

the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami Florida 333156

Michael L Schneider Esq mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110

Thomasville Road Tallahassee Florida 32303 this 25th day of September 2013

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The Honorable

Kerry I Evander evanderkficourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S Beach Street

Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

16