LMAO...Updates, they have to serve the defendants first.
Oh, and when they do, Heller, Horowitz, & Feit will have some serious issues to contend with. From the NY Bar Association Rules of Practice. Just some of the violations I uncovered regarding this lawsuit and Heller.
The lawsuit filed is frivolous and without merit. It was intended to serve one purpose and one purpose only. To harass and intimidate. The sanctions applied to lawyers are then based on what actions they take after have reason to be aware that such intent existed.
RULE 1.16
Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) A lawyer shall not accept employment on behalf of a person if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such person wishes to:
(1) bring a legal action, conduct a defense, or assert a position in a matter, or otherwise have steps taken for such person, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or
(2) present a claim or defense in a matter that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
(b) Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client when:
(1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the representation will result in a violation of these Rules or of law;
(2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client;
(3) the lawyer is discharged; or
(4) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client is bringing the legal action, conducting the defense, or asserting a position in the matter, or is otherwise having steps taken, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person.
(c) Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client when:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) the client deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation to the lawyer as to expenses or fees;
(6) the client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
(7) the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively;
(8) the lawyer’s inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interest of the client likely will be served by withdrawal;
(9) the lawyer’s mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively;
(10)the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment;
(11)withdrawal is permitted under Rule 1.13(c) or other law;
(12)the lawyer believes in good faith, in a matter pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal; or
(13)the client insists that the lawyer pursue a course of conduct which is illegal or prohibited under these Rules.
That e-Mail communication with Kaja Whitehouse threatening her, that would be in violation of this rule.
RULE 4.2:
Communication With Person Represented By Counsel
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law.(b) Notwithstanding the prohibitions of paragraph (a), and unless otherwise prohibited by law, a lawyer may cause a client to communicate with a represented person unless the represented person is not legally competent, and may counsel the client with respect to those communications, provided the lawyer gives reasonable advance notice to the represented person’s counsel that such communications will be taking place.
RULE 5.1 :
Responsibilities of Law Firms, Partners,
Managers and Supervisory Lawyers
(a) A law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm conform to these Rules.
(b) (1) A lawyer with management responsibility in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that other lawyers in the law firm conform to these Rules.
(2) A lawyer with direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the supervised lawyer conforms to these Rules.
(c) A law firm shall ensure that the work of partners and associates is adequately supervised, as appropriate.
A lawyer with direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall adequately supervise the work of the other lawyer, as appropriate. In either case, the degree of supervision required is that which is reasonable under the circumstances, taking into account factors such as the experience of the person whose work is being supervised, the amount
of work involved in a particular matter, and the likelihood that ethical problems might arise in the course of working on the matter.
(d) A lawyer shall be responsible for a violation of these Rules by another lawyer if:
(1) the lawyer orders or directs the specific conduct or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies it; or
(2) the lawyer is a partner in a law firm or is a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial responsibility in a law firm in which the other lawyer practices or is a lawyer who has supervisory authority over the other lawyer; and
(i) knows of such conduct at a time when it could be prevented or its consequences avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action; or
(ii) in the exercise of reasonable management or supervisory authority should have known of the conduct so that reasonable remedial action could have been taken at
a time when the consequences of the conduct could have been avoided or mitigated.
And then of course there is this little issue:
RULE 3.3 :
Conduct Before a Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.(b) A lawyer who represents a client before a tribunal and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
