CASTAGIlOOIO lAV(:$IiOop, P. A. .

801 West Bay Drive

(727) 712-3333
,Suite 301' "
Larg'o, FL 33710
August 30, 2012
T.heodore P. Littlewood" Jr., Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
THE FLORIDA BAR '
651 East Jefferson S,treet
Tallahassee, 32399-2300
RE: Complaint by Nell J. Gillespie
T.he Florida Bar File No. (6D)
Dear Mr. Ljttlewood:
This .is my response to the nonsensical complaint filed against me by my former Neil J. Gillespie.
c
Gillespie is "on the go.vemment perhaps wrongfully (more about this later in this ,letter). He has
all of his waking hours to file complaints. I do Tf1erefore, I will express my chiefly in terms
of my exhibits, which are all self-exp.lanatory, with pertinent parts underlined on each. 'as follows:
, ..
EXHIBIT A: On or about August 11, 2012, Gillespie filed this Florida Bat complaint against me. In
complr;lint,. he expresses his with the legal provided to h,im whUe.,
at a dep'osition which took place' on June 21, .2011, nearly 14 full months' previously III !
But if you examine the as "Exhibit A;8 which sent to me by Gillespie!
at 6:33 PM on June 21, 2011, you will see just how unhappy Gillespie was on the evening!
of the deposition. ' '. . !
EXHIBIT B: sent me the e-mail marked as "Exhibit B" on 22, 2011 (the day fOllOWing!
ttie deposition). In It, he thanked me again for my efforts, not just once, but twice. Also;
In this e-mail are his promises to provide with additional compensation for services 1
already rendered. In hindsight, I now realize that Gillespie never intended to pay me any!
additional money; he merely the promise of more money to keep me answeriri'g his;
Incessant, inane telephone calls. This:e-l't:Iaii also contains the words U[s]e.eyou July 1st,II i
and upS. I plan to honor our fin.ancial JUly 1," two explicit references to his 1.
promises to come to my office on July 1, 2011 to pay me additio'nal monies. WhY.l
would an unhappy thank me for my efforts and agree' to pay me additions'l fees? :
EXHIBIT C:' In or around 2011, Gillespie sent,rnes gift-wrapped.CD, with Y$t another "thank youi
in the form of a hand-written note. 'His is demon-strafed, by his URL withl
the words YouSue.org-. [I have no Idea what the CD is, to this day I haven't opened
!
EXHIBIT D: Again, in'or around July 2011, Gillespie sent me another present, this time. a gift-wrapped;
.book. With the book came another hand-wriUen 'hanks again" and "token ofl
appreciatiQn" note. !
Page 1(pf 3)

,
, EXHIBIT E: Exhibit 'IE" provides the precise reason for Gillespie filing this grievance against
'1 the a-mail marked as "Exhibit E- to Gillespie on July 25, 2012. I santit
immediately after learning that Gillespie had recorded.and published a private telephone
between me and him on June 14, 2011. Before this July 25
th
e-mail, the last
previous e-mail I sent to Gillespie was dated August 12, 2011; his last correspondence
me was .dated August 4, 2011. Clearly,. Gillespie's. Florida Bar"complalnt against
me is solely by this July In which I reveal that I've caught him
with h'ls hand In cookie 'ar of Florida's wiretap statu._ For some obscure reason,
Gillespie is fanatical about recording telephone conversations, and knowing this, I was
always quite clear to him that I did not bonae" to' be r corded under an circumstances.
"EXHIBIT F: This is actual first page of the itranspript which Gillespie illegally recorded and
published. This document how a liar can get tripped up in his own
machinations: GillelJie placed this' te/eph'one call to ME, J did 'not call HIM III I
answered hi.s call to me by stating my which is,my habit. So why' would Gillespie's
answering machine" kick 0n? And even if it why W9uld I keep speaking
as if I didn't hear the warning which told him I find unacceptable and repugnant?
Michael Borseth, the transcriptionist/collrt reporter who transcribed the telephone
advised me that Gillespie had instructed him to place this "mini-Miranda" of
sorts at the start of transcript, without regard to whether It was part of the
recording. [I that Gillespie provide me with the audio from that telephone
conversation, but of course, as could be expected, he has not provided me with :that
"smoking gun.-] .
EXHIBIT G: .Two years ago ,this month, attorney Robert W. Bauer was Gillespie"s target, as I am n.ow.
HIS complaint response letter, which I found on Gillespie's ridiculous website, is
and speaks for itself. What Gillespie did to this p09r guy should be a cautionary must
read all lawyers.
Mr. Littlewood, G'illespie Is well known to your Office as a '''complainant.- 'Indeed. he' IS a
"professional complainant" who gives new meaning to the.phrase useless human being. His modus
operandi is to ingratiate himself to abusy, 'hard-working, kind-hearted lawyer or Mr. Bauer and'
probably others I don't know'about). He does' so by representing himself as' a poor
l

misunderstood. mistreated, disabled, handicapped victim. Then, after lawyer works .for him
virtually pennies .Mr. "Gillespie rewards that. bY..filing a lawsuit or a"ar, grievance against
that lawyer. .
It is my humble opinion that Gillespie .Is anything but a victim, but he is a human parasite,
con man, bully, consummate actor, and pathological liar. He actiJaily believes the nonsense 'he says ,and
writes. entire. reason for being is to work the system" by using his -invisible to his
strategic advantage,; Forget about caring for a spouse, significant other, children. and/or famUy.
his life has:'none of these so as long as he has a computer, the internet, a printer,.
and a, telephone voice recorder; Gillespie will.be out there creating strife and havoc. ", '
Whafs sad;is:th(ithe even claim to be successful at "working the system" to his ,advantage.
He seemingly has nothing by his efforts, other. than. the perverted, sadisticjoy he cle.arty reoeives'
by causing (or trying to and,all sorts of problems for judges and It ,is my personal
opinion that he is not (Jisabled at all, for if he, had the. cognitive and neurological deficits he, claims to 'have,
he would be. incapable of generating the reams and reams .an.d reams of. paper whictl he spews out in
the form of endl.ess motions, complaints, exhibits, etc. Gillespie has.cast himself victim.
and has turned his"pseudo-victim status into an art form. If he put as 'much effort Into a job as he'has
into filing lawsuits and complaints, he l'!1ay actually serve a function in society.
Page 2 (of 3)
In whatever spare time I have, I intend to appeal to the government agency respol1slble for using
my tax dollars to support Gillespie. My question to them will be: How can GiUesple be "handicapped
or .cdisabled", and unable to hold a.job,. yet at the same time, be perfectly capable of typing at his
computer for what must be 15 to 20 hours per day, 7 days per week? Take a look at what he's
produced, General of the,Social Security Administration" and me: Is this the.work
of a individual? Or have you been duped? Perhaps it's iime to audit Gillespie's
. _..... .
case.
My opposing counsel at Gillespie's deposition was Ryan.Christopher Gehris" Rodems. Chris once
remarked to me, unsolicited,. that he would be happy to speak to The Florida Bar on my behalf if Gillespie
grieved me the way he .did Bob Bauer. Evidently, Mr. Rodems knew Gillespie better than I did, and he
expected Gillespie to grieve me. I will copy Chris on this letter just in case you may wish to speak to him
about my attitude, demeanor, preparation', and performance at the deposition held on June 21, 201'1.
Mr. Littlewood. If Gillespie hada legitimate camp!s/", about the services I to hI,,:,
in June 20.11, why did it spme 1314 months to flle this I think your
investigation Will'reveal that Gillespie's complaint, much like Gillespie himself, is completely devoid of
merit. filed this concocted grievance merely as a preemptive strike" in anticipation of my lawsuit
against him for his, flagrant violation of Florida's Wiretapping statute. It shou"d be noted that Florida
'Statute 934.27(3) states 'in pertinent par:t Min no 'case shall a plaintiff entitled to recover be Bwarded./ess
than $1,000. n Gillespie's probably reCorded many, many other innocent victims Who were without
knowledge that they were being recorded, and so his potential liability is substantial. .
UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOI:NG FACTS ARE TRUE,
CORRECT AND COMPLETE.
Very truly yours,
EUGENE P. CASTAGLIUOLO
Enclosures'
cc: Gillespie (by e:..mail)
Robert W. Bauer, Esquire (bye-mail)
Ry.an .. Rodems, Esquire (by e-mail) ,
.<?trice of the Social Security regular S.',Mail)
Page 3 (of 3)
.--. _. -_....
From: Neil Gillespie
.._ lfl! --....,.._ _ , - ...,y _.,... ., _ " ..........-. _--.-- --.- - ., - , , _ '"
To: attomeyepc@yahoo.com;
--_.__ --_ _,-------_ _ - __-_ -.--_._--_._._ _ ..__ _
.Date: Tuesday, June 21; 2011 6:33 PM
t N. t ___ .._ .._ .'_ :0 _ _ __ .. , _._ .._ .. ._. __ __ _ : _ _M... ._.."_'_"_' p..... . _.
Eugene, '.
\
Just want to thankY.,ou for xour effOrts on my behalf. what you did today. But
before I got home I regretted making the settlement. I now my appeal could have succeeded.
Is there any way to overturn this settlement? I believe my decision was po'or and made
.. '.don't blame' ,you.
.. r . .
I had, good claims' in th.is case Rodems turned the case into a triJrand-trap model to rack
up fees. It seems like' 75% of this case was Rodems obtaining and collecting fees. I
should have moved out of state' and worked on the appeal, and returned when the appellate
.court ruled. : ,'.
Neil Gillespie
,
I.
of
EXHIBIT..L
Print
Page 1 of 3
: ..
,,.-., .. Jtf, ',,. _.,__
--'.._.__....,.,-- --_........... .._J .. __
Subject: ' Re: Motion To Set Aside .
!
__r.
..-._--"----------,
. Neil Gillespie (neilgillespie@mfi.net)
----.-----_.....__..-.---:---_.----'--_..._------_._--
To:
--.....-......, .................. ............u........"...,... l ..,,".'..........__._
Date:. Wednesday. June.22, 2011 3:12'PM
.. :: _ _.::._---:._ - __.. .._--,;,..._..- __.. __._ _.__..._ _ _--._._------_ - _- _._------- -._..__.__.__ _ ::.-_..__ _ _..--:.._---_...__ .
EXHIBIT''
Eugene,
Hope you.watch the Q:yo with Huffer's interview. It will explain what I experience' in court.
As yoU phrased it sometimes I think to hard. That is actually a
.of PTSD.: Mr.:. Rodems has used my' disability to his advantage in this case.
Attached a draft copy.of my Motion To Set Aside: .Settlement .Agreement, Notice Of
Dismissal.With' 2dDCA, and Joint Stipulation For Dismissal With prejUdice 13th
. Circuit"; Gillespie Under Duress And In Custody of HOSO. Have you Mr. Rodems' of my
inte.ntion to challenge the settlement and dismissal? Otherwise I'll just fax him a copy of the
draft so he is on notice.
The clerk's Qocket still does not .show your notice .of appearance. It may be misfiled with the
Motion to aU,ash Writ of Bodily Attachment, Of Judge Arnold have withheld it from the
record, to relieve' you of further I don't see that as' a problem since I can't
cQntinue pay attorney's fees even your very reasonable fees.
;. I
One area .where I need a referral to advise on forming a legal'entity for my Justice Network
and how to manage domain names. Any suggestions? .
TharJ!s.you fQLmYr efforts on my behalf. I believe you approached this case as hormal counsel
6iJfMr. Rodems' posture negates a normarapproach. You wrote triat you no
to reVisit my case/situation until July 5 or thereafter, that's fine, I can't pay additional
attorney's fees anyway_ I will attempt to obtain pro bono counsel, and follow-up on some
earlier leads. ':" .
,.
. , . .
I plan.to send a copy 'of tl)9 attached draft motion to Major J.ames Livingston, Commander of
the 'Court Operations Division. I believe you met him yesterday. Maj. 'livingston a law
.degree, and me impeaching part of .Cook's order the writ Qf bodily
.attachment in mo'ion. Yesterday.1 provided"Livir1gston a 'cop,y
to read,. SQ Livingston is on' notice about the' ethical'issues'of placing a Civil '
.Iitigant in custody" of the 'HCso to compel a settlement and dismissaL
I want to' know from Maj. livingston why the arrest order for me is sti'll on HCSO
website. :;. .
8/20/2012 ?.rand=cjci7tg5qu74m
1
Print Page. 2 of 3
Thanksagain. aQpreciate your efforts in this very difficult case. See you July 1st. < ..
Sincerely,
Neil Gillespie
---- Original Message -
:...... .......... ..... e_,.,... ___. . .., ...
From:Eugene P. Castaglfuolo, Esq.
To: Neif .Gillespie
Sent: Wednesday. June 22, 2011 10:57 AM
EXHIBIT ..L
Re: Motion To Set Aside
Thank you very much for the book and CD's.
Due to other professional and personal obligations, Ihave no plans to revisit your
'case/situation until July 5 or thereafter.
I shall look forward to your 'visit on Friday July 1 before 1 PM (and preferably around noon).to
pay me my fee(s) .. '
I STRONGLY suggest you "stand down" and take some days to contemplate your actions.
Eugene
www.CtaglluoloLIIWGroup.com www.FlllnIlSankruptcylnTampa.com
Eugene P. Castagliuolo, Esquire
CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
2151 HcNulleq Booth;.Road, Cle.rwafer, Florida 33759
(727) 712-3,333 i
Castaglluolo Lew Group is a debt relief agency helping people to file for bankruptcy relief under United States Oode.(11 USC 101-1330).
CONFIDENTIALITY: This a-mati message (and any associated flies) from Castaglluolo Law Group, P. A. fs for the sole use of the Intended
reclplehl:otreciplents :and may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use. dlsdosure. distribution, or other.
dtsseminatio,n of this e-mail message and/or the tnforlT!ation contained therein is strictly prohibited. If Yt?u are not the intended recipient of this e-rnail
'please contact the sender by reply 'email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy all copies of original message.
-- On rue, 6/21/11, Nell Gillespi's <neilgillespie@mfi.net> wrote:
I, .... '
.Frpm: Neil Gillespie' <neilgillespie@mfi.net>
Motion :To Set Aside
To: "Eugene P. Esq.'" <attorneyepc@yahoo.com>
Ju.ne 21, 2011, 9.:30' PM
Eugene,
preparing a Motion/fo Set Aside: Settlement Agreement,.Notice OfDismissJil With
'Prejt\dice 2dDCA, and Joint Stipulation For Dismissal Gillespie Under Duress
ofInc8Jceration. I don't expect you to be involved with this, but please notify Mr. Rodems
A.SAP. I plan to have the motion ready by tomorrow morning.
I didn't sleep last night and was at tIle deposition, that's probably why I started'
8/20/2012
I
Print
Page 3 of3
f- .
making mistakes. Not "to mention Rodems' yelling and threats, and" the fact that I was actually
in custody of the I-ICSO when I agreed to the above. Seems to me' that was very poor form.
But the fmal straw was Rodems reference to my deceased Mother. This been one of
Rodems' talking points for a year and a half.. As you observed, I was ready for Rodems with a
rebuttal, although it was mcomplete. Rodems takes one inartful line from my pleadings and :
exaggerates'and repeats it. The amount of effort to combat Rodems' misrepresentations is .
enormous.
I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Sincerely . "
Neil Gillespie
PS. "-I' plan to honor our financial agreement July 1
EXHIBIT ..&.
. :....
y
. -. . .
.....
8/20/2012

jf .'.
.
1':- .
." !
,.. \.::.
.0,;-
... f:
. .,
,,', '.
.
...:.... :,..
'. :..... r. :.'.:' .
.' t.. .... : 'r. ,:. . :: .. :'j ::::' '. .
: ',:'

",' .1:'
.: .....
'. :::
0 '.'
.,
,.,
0 0
.. :.. ;'.;: .
i:
..
:"
: .....
'0:.
........
. :.. ,," -.o'
.. ". ...' .. " ':':.
. " ':.
.. ;;.' I '.. : ... I .:: ." .:.
.,., ': .. . .,: ;::.:..,.,:.. , :.,'< .',:'.:: ':.: .
":", ,0 ... '.: '.::
'. ,.' :'. .
j ..
.... ,:." :
". ;:',;:: .
.. ;.,
.. : ... ,
. . ..... ... !:.' "' .....'

.,'
; .'
: .::>,',
- ;: : ".r.. '0' .. : '. ".
.." ," . "." ." '. ..
. ." .. 0.:.:.;'.:'..
.0' :_::
....' /'..J;XHISIT
. ',. :"
'f
I..: : :
. ;.
' ..
i ... I;
'. .fa:. ' ..
" .\ ":',:":' .. ';" ... ...: 0'" .: : :.'. '
. :..... : ... ,.
0
'":'":.... '0.:.
.. '
.1
..
. iii ,.
. A Network
.http:t(youSue.orgl
I
..
.
I'
I

f
i
1
I .'
Neil Glliespie . I
'.. -,
8092 SW 11Stb Loop
(352) 8-54-7807
Ocala, Florida 34481
neilgillespie@mfi.net
. l -:
i'
J :
.
'. EXHIBIT . I:>
I ....
BtyeP
e
', . '.
. . . . 5 *Si Lu/N/
Ylt/ ,t<fA-; F '7.
itJ#r kiA/Mitt1/. ,
.jJ .If- ./-!(Y/;tf7l- ,1v)'N;/
kIlt ." /it/I.
Print
Page 1 of t
___.._---_ - __-_..__,-----_- _..--_.._--' --_.__._-_...._.._-.............".
Subject: Florida's Wiretapping Laws
From: P. Esq. (attorneyepc@yahoo.com)
: _ ., _ .. , '" ..' , _-.-. "., "., w "_ " ,, ..* ,,. . _ ...,.,.-- ""-'.
To: neilgillesp;e@mfi.net:
Co: .mjborseth@verizon.net;
.............._. 0 _ _.h. . ._ H._._ _ _ _ _._ ___ _ _ _ , __ _ _ _ _._.._ _ _ _ __._ __ __ _._ _..u._.. __......._ _ _._ _.._ _ .
Date: Wednesday, .July 25, 3:05 PM '
...". .,. T-f.,,., ,., :U',,, ,,,. tIP ","''"''' :.., _,..."".,..,. ....,.,..,. ".,., " _ , .., _.__ " _." _ _.'_, .._ ' ,..., ...
I have learned from Court Reporter Michael Borseth and other sources that you wrongfully
recorded and publisheq dialogue from a telephone conversation we had on June 14, 2011,
even though you had explicit instructions from me that my words were not to be recorded. The .
"busines's use exemption" that you claim is nonsense.. Th.e only "business" you have is in your
own mind. Se.c9ndly, you pursuaded or coerced Mr. Borseth to include verbiage at the
beginning of the transcript which was spoken by neither you nor me.
I am hereby demanding a copy of,the audio from the aforementioned telephone conversation. I
I am also demanding that you remove.the transcript of our telephone conversation from your
ri(ficulo.us website. Lastly, I ani dema.nding that you notify the Courts where you have filed this
recorded telephone conversation. or I most certainly will.
Be advised that Florida Statute 934 allows fo'r monetary damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees. And I'm sure that I'm not the only person you've wrongfully recorded.
You h'ave ten (10) days from today to deliver the aforementioned audio to my office in Largo'.
D.on't even think of telling me you that you no longer possess the audio, because we both
know that, you do, as' you, nothing better'to do day in and day out but to pursue your
It:Jdicrous, ridiculous' "lawsuits'!'.'
In the event you to meet my demand(s) as expressed above, I plan to sue you for violating
Florida's' Security 01 Communications Act. Mr. Borseth mayor may not be a co-defendant for
wrongfully "tran'scribin'g" words that were not uttered by me' or by you and including same in
the so that the unsuspecting reader ,would think those words were part of the
proceeding, when they most certainly were not.
warned. My lawsuit is drafted and ready to go. Your move.
. "
Eugene p'.,
Caslaglluolo, EsqUire
'CASTAGLIUOLO LAW GROUP, P. A.
801 'west Bay Orive ;
Suite 301
Largo, ,
.(727) ,
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-nlan message' (and any sssoaated from Castaglfuolo taw Group. P. A. Is for the sale use. Of the intended reciplenl or
recipients ,nay .contaln .and privileged Any review, use, disclosure, distribution, or other. dissemination of this
message.andlor thelnformaUon conta,ned therein Is strictly prohIbited. If you are not the Intended recipient of this e-mail message, plea88
contact the sender by reply email or by telephone at (727) 712-3333 and destroy an copies of the original message.
EXHIBIT.-E
8/2.0/2012
:' . ... ...

....
Robert W. Bauer, P-.A.
2815 NW 13th Streett Suite2pOE. GainE$Yille, FL 32609

Robert Bauer, Esq.
DavidM. Sama, Esq.
Phone:
Fax:
(352)375.5960
(352)331.2518
.August 18, 2010
William Gautier Kitchen
florida..Bar " .
:651. East Jetrerson Street
Tal.lahass.ee, 32399-2300
Re: Qillespie; The Florida Bar File No. 2011-00,073 (8B)
Mr. Kitchen:
- .
aC9ept this, letter-as my response to your letter of July .30, 2010, in accordance. with Rule
Regulating the Florida Bar. I also enclosing a completed disclosure form
.mandatetJ by Rule 3-7. 1(g).
Prior to my response to the allegations contained in Mr. Gillespie's complaint fonn, it is
important that I provide The Florida Bar with a summary ofthe events leading up to my
representation oCMr. Gillespie that resulted in his ofthis complaint.
I. SUMMARY of EVENTS PRIOR TO REPRESENTATION OF MR. GILLESPIE
I '.
Prior this lawsuit, Mr. Gillespie was the plaintiffin a suit against Amscot Cash
Advance. After losing in lower court, Mr. Giliespie appealed the ruling on grounds arising out
ofthe Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It appears from the record that the Defendant's were
not confident tluit they would win on appeal and agreed to pay each ofthe three plaintiffs $200Q,
. as well as' to pay $50,000, in attorneys fees. Sometime after the cJose ofthis matter, Mr .
Gillesple detennined finn representing him in his action against Amscot breached .
their fee agreement with him. .. .
.' .. .Gillespie. initiated a against Barker, Rodems, & Cook, P.A. ("BRC") in
August o200S, and was proceeding with .claims pro see Mr. Gillespie alleged that BRC
breached contingency fee contract with him by retaining a greater percentage of the
proceeds from a than they were entitled to. Contemporaneous with. filing his claims
against eRe, Mr. Gillespie PUblished a letter to Ii representatlv<, ofAmscot, the defendant in the
underlying lawsuit, allegaUons of fraud and wrongdoing on the part ofBRC and one of
its partilers. Based' on this letter, BRC and the partner named in the letter filed a
Mr. alleging libel.
.: Despite claims against Mr. Gillespi!-, to proceed with !be case .p,o see
Mr.' GilleSpie was without the requisite or ski,ll required to litigate but chose
...
EXHIBliT _&"-11
18, 2'010 .
Page 2 0(10
Letier.toMr. Kitchen
to anyway. This had disastrous results and, when I met with him in early 2007, Mr.
Gillespie had:' .
(a) Been ordered to comply with a discovery request and to pay the Defendant's
fees and costs related to his continuous non-compliance;
(b) A, motion for Section 57.105, Florida Statute sanctions filed against him, but
qad chosen to permit the frivolous claims to remain in place eight months
served with the motion before choosing to voluntarily dismiss
them;'
(0) Voluntarily dismissed his claims against.BRC without prejudice, while
counterclaims were still pending against him. However, because the stat\lte of
liniitations period had tolled, the' effect waS that the counts were dismissed
, With prejudice; and, . .
(d) Filed motions to disqualify two who were formerly to the
.' ' Both motions were 'denied, the judges subsequently recus.ed
themselves on their own motions., .' .
As is evident from the foregOing, Mr. was in a precarious situation when he
approached me ab'out representing him. Initiaily, I agreed to 'review the transcripts 'and pleadings
tluit'had been filed in the cas up to that and to advise him as to how he should proceed
with the In reviewing the file, it beCame evident that from the ofthe case, Mr.
Oillespie"had difficulties and complying with the Rules Procedure.
Gillespie was inlplored by the court to secure representation and the showed that he had
great diffiu1ty in doing so.. Furthennore, in April 012007, Mr. Gillespie no longer had any .
pending against BRC, and there was no legitimate basis 8 recovery"on which a
contingency fee could be based. Mr. Gillespie represented to me, that due
to the claims' against him for libel and the pending motion, for sanctions; he Wished to be
represented by counsel on an h9urly fee basis. Mr. Gillespie also requested me to; ifpossible,
reinstate his claims against BRC. I foUnd this to' be cqDsistent with his representations to the
C9urt durihg the February S, 2007, hearing (transcript available. upon immediately
proceeding my initial consultation with him.
On April.S, 2()07, I sent. a letter toMr. Gillespie advising hilll of'his options in the
pending action In this letter' I advised him that there was already an order against
him awarding to attorneys' fees to BRC and that it was likely that he would be
ordered to pay fees pursuant to the motion section 57.105 sanctiQns.
However, I that. I had negotiated. a ccwalk.,.way" and .
in consideration for botlt"'sides relinquishing their BRC,would not pursuetl1e
fees that they were entitled.. Because Mr. Gillespie had already dismissed his claims, I felt .that I
an that was very' advantageous to Mr. Gillespie. However, Mr.
Gillespie did not -agree','1JS he advised that he. did not wish, to settle this .. in the way that I
had proposed and that I CQnti'nue preparing for the case. A copy of letter is
attached, as Exhibit A.
At this .1 to represent .. m,atter and negoq.ted
with. him he agreed to an hourlY billing rate. This fee ,was .
August 18;2010
.Page 3 :of 1.0
'. Letter to Mr. Kitchen
I
into and signed 'by Mr. Gillespie on April 24, 2007. The provided.
that I would bill for my time in.connection with Mr. Gillespie's case at a rate of$250/hour. A
copy ofthis fee agreement is attached as Exhibit B.
II. RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT
1. Failure to zealously claims:
my initial with Mr. Gillespie, we discussed strategy and concluded
.that I. would attempt to reinstate his claims BRC even though they dismissed after
ofliniitations had Because reinstating claims in the same as they were
dismissed a novel legal issue m,d outside ofnonnal on
dual with two I thought had the most chances for Jfil.ed a
motion to;withdraw'voluntary dismissal by a memorandum oflaw 8Upp<?rting
I 8D1:ended the'answer originally'nled by.Mr. Gillespie. At the time, we had no
.<;>f action pending BRC, so I iJ;1cluded as part of the answer, a
the previously dismissed by Mr. Gillespie and adding a
count' for breach offiduciary duty. This dual-front strategy was ultimately successful as my
monon to withdt:aw voluntary' dismissal was granted, and, as 'of today, the claims are viable.
Mr. aiso alleges that I "failed to present evidence that there was no signed
fee subsequent to Mr. representations that there were. This
allegation undersoor.es. much Gf the basis for my motion for withdrawal. The Complaint
originally drafted. by Mr. Gillespie includes a count for breach ofcontract and, specifically
alleges in paragraph 6: '''GILLESPffi and the LAW FIRM [BRC] had a written representation
contract." The hearings in question were on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the pleadmgs.
Had I argUed that ito contract existed between the parties as Mr. Gillespie now claims t failed to
it wouid have 'been repugnmt -to his position. Additionally, Mr. Gillespie now asserts that]
failed'to ptovE,..the ofa contract by submitting affidavits. Clearly,' Mr. Gillespie
makes this assertion 811 understanding ofwhat is appropriate to argue in a hearing on a
motion fot judgment on the pleadings. Mr. Gillespie did not understand the procedunll or
substantive surtounding issue and now wishes supplant his prowess mine.
.. .
. Rule 4-1.2 'provides that a lawyer should abide by their client's decisions'
conceriung objectives
t
the comment to the Rule reads that lethe lawyer shQuld assume
responsibiiity technical and legal tactical issues " Mr. Gillespie made:DUD;lerolls
legalettOrs during his tiine as a pro se litigant. It was for this reason... ihat he solicited
my,services. We and mutually agreed upon the ofthe Mr.
Gillespie acknowledges this in Pro Se Response .to Attorney Robert W. Bauer's Moq,on for
Withdrawal ofCounsel C). However,. Mr. Gillespie was consistently unwilling to
permit -me, to represent him in.L way that and legally He.
insisted that _. take legal and procedural,actions that anq '.
impennissjble under the of Civil Procedure, in the given situatiotl. Mr. Gillespie had
difficulty why I 'was unable to make the procedural and legal mandated,
and as a'result, our as attorney and
I' .;.; .
':'1 .
...
August 18, 0
Page 4 of.tO
Letter'to Mr.
. Mr. Gillespie claims that I failed to amend the pro complaint. As previously
the pursued were first aimed at re-establishing Mr. Gillespie's claims. lJpon
dOing SO, a motion for Judgment on the pleadings was filed and noticed. The resultant order
from the Court granted the motion as to Count II dismissed it 'to Count I. Rather than give
leave to .amend, 'however, the court explicitly ordered "in lieu an amended complaint, all
factual contained in Count II are incorporated in Count I." A responsive pleading had
been filed in this matter and without leave, an was not pennissible. Furthennore,
because ofthe dismissal ofhis claims, were'statute oflimitations issues involved
,in attempting,to brinsnew causes of'action.
2. Failure to litigate against BRC counterclaim:
Gillespie correctly points out, I filed an Answer to 'Defendant's
n,is answer. was and is to'my knowledge,'1egally sufficient and ,effective.:
I;>uriitg'my,representation ofMr. Gillespie, discoveryw,as conducted within the ofBRC's
claims. fur the coun,ter-counter complaint were fully discussed above, and, as
noted; to Mr. Gillespie's claims rather than defending against BRC's
counterclaim.' '
3. Failure to zealously pursue case management:
seems to focus on Mr. Rodems,' behavior with to case management
paragraph ofhis grievance. While that is outside ofthe sCQpe of-any complaint, against
and' therefore, does not warrant a response, I will respond to, the overall allegation that I did
not pursue"case management. When, I 'first became involved with this matter, were' a
number ofmotions pending and 'Mr. Gillespie had already been ord,ered to pay attorneys' fees for
non..compliance a discoverY Additionally, Mr. Gillespie .:filed a' to, have .
'diBqualified.' The'motion was denied but.1udge Neilson withdrew, on' his'flwn'
motion and JudgefIsom was appointed. Shortly before I began representing Mr. he
filed a motion to"have Isom disqualified as well. Again, despite the ,being denied,
she withdrew sua .sponte. :.'The',constaitt ofthis case that resulted left'a docket full
ofunheard motions and a'packlog ofissues to address. .
, .
," :,' .:, ,I contacted, Mr. Rodems' immediately upon becoming involved in worked
with him iri amicably preparing for and, conducting discovery., We were able to many: of .
move,the case forward.' The'motions were set and heard in relatively
short orderl Mr. Gillespie was dissatisfied with the procedural tactiCs that I employed ,on
his comes from an understanding of the RulC$ of
Civil Procedure and " ,not upon my ,failure to uphold any ofmy duties under the '
Rules While1 did:not march into court demanding that the']lJdge : "
tiDi:e,oil his, docket to help with scheduling as Mr..Gillespie suggests'! sho.uJd,have, I did
with' ppposing, c.ounsel to clear :the procedural pending the.
had been ordered. Because ofthe number oftimes 'the waS
unilecessanly consumed-by Mr. Gillespie prior to my representation ofhim; I .it was,
.' . :.'.
i '
, ',' I
Augu'st 1'8,2010
"Page'5' of 10 .
. Letter to Mr. Kitchen
important to strive to, the discovery process and disposition ofpretrial m,otions in a way
not require the court's involvement any more than was necessary. .
4. Failure to zealously pursue discovery:
As: explained above, Mr. had voluntaril:y dismissed his claims against BRC
prior to my representation of him in this matter. Because ofthis, much of.the discovery he
sought pripr to the.dismissal was moot. The few items still existed from his discovery
either properly to,by Mr. Rodems, or produced within the appropriate
Because the'di.scovery requests had been appropriately complied with by Mr.
Rodems, the motions that Mr. Gillesp'ie filed to compel di'scovery were improper. I conducted
di'sC9very my time as Mr. Gillespie's legal counsel in 811 ethic&1 and amicable mann'er as I
$l1 ;R04ents will attest. In fact, upon learning of grievance, Mr. wrote a
in support of my representation 9fmy conduct during the course ofmy
-representation ofMI-. Gillespie. In his letter, which is available upon request, Rodems
CCI Mr. Baue( to be' competent, bright, hardworking, and very afhis
client's " .
" Mr. Gillespie was under the false, understanding that the order of ofattomeys'
fees Mr. Gillespie could 'somehow be "mitigated" by my filing ofburderisome and #.'
:frivolous discovery requests. Despite my explanations to him as to the origin ofthe entitlement,
he to implore me to undertake these dilatory tactics and became upset when I
explained that I could not do so in good legal or ethical conscience.
s. Failure to seek disqualification ofBRC's coWlscl Ryan. Christopher Rodems:.
issue is another where Mr. Gillespie demanded that I take a position that was not
procedurally availabl:e. My repeated attempts to explain the Rules 9fCivil Procedure in this
regard were lett-to my beliefthat our relationship had deteriorated to :the point that
we could' 'rio longer. effectively communicate. Mr. Gillespie originally filed a Motion to
Disqualify:Counsel of2006. The motion was heard and an order denying the motion
was entered On May IZ, 2006. Mr. Gillespie made a motion for in December of2006
which was: also denied. From that time forward, r. wanted me to continue to present
the same ,atguments that ha4 already been denied by the eourt.
. 'TI1.rougho'ut fqJresentation ofMr. Gillespie, he suggested that I to get Mr.
Rodems as for Defendants. It became apparent that Mr. Gillespie had a
severe dislike ofMr. Rodems and,was upset that 'the Court had denied his original motion in this
regard. This .is further by Mr. Gillespie's extensively explained '!lrguments for
Rodems that are contained in his grievance against me. These are the
were made in support of the February motion 81idodenied. Since then,
there haye no 'novel arguments to support Mr. R9dems disqualification. When I attempted
to explain this..to Gillespie, he became enraged and insisted that his legal an81Y$is:ofttie
issue was .
'6. Failure to defend against sanctions: .
. f 1
is, 2010
Jlage 6,of'10 .
Lette( to'Mr. Kitchen
Tb:e cIa.hna relative to the Section 57.105 sanctions all originate from a time prior to my
. representation ofMr. Gillespie. I atteinpted to the issues surrounding those sanctions and
him in the heaPng relative to that motion. The Judge however, did not find that the
fact that Mr. Gillespie was a pro se litigant, excused him from compliance with the rules,
especially, when he was advised by opposing counsel that his actions givlng rise to the sanctions
and given numerous opportunities correct them. transcript ofthe July 3,
i 2007 bearing on Defendant's, Amended Monon ,for Sanctions Pursuant to 57.],(>5,. Florida
Statues, is available upon and serves as a good barometer ofthe efforts I undertook to
the'issues by Gillespie this matter. The Honorable Judge Barton II, as part
ofhis order ,granting sanctiong against Mr. Gillespie stated: "The way in which Mr. Gillespie's
;sidehas .been, today -- with a high degree ofprofessionalism and confidence reflects
the wisdom' [ofretmning counsel in this matter]."
, ' . I statement ofthe court'speaks for itself with respect to'my
ofMr." the-aforementioned hearing. Mr. Gillespie erroneously believes, as
earlier, that .there Wag a way for me to "m,itigate" the fees incurred by ,opposing
',counsel result frivolous claims. For more than eleven Mr.,
Gillespie to withdraw the frivolous responses to the'Defendant's counter-claim. In his
grievance me, still fuat the counter-claim constitutes abuse qf process.
Because Mr. Gillespie refused, to withdraw responses, BRC was required to prepQre a motion
to dismiss",notice the hearing,vprepare and deliver the arguments in support oftheir motion.
. the response had already been deemed frivolous by the Court, there was very
room: for argutl!.ent that BRC was not entitled to their fees. Mr. Gillespie is too personally
involved this matter to understand the requirement of the Rules ofCivil Procedure in this
regard, and does Dot ,understand that the claims,he forwarded are inappropriate responses in an
answer-to. acounter-claim for libel.
7. to infQnD contrary tp Rule 4-1.4(a):
,01
Soon after my representation ofMr. Gillespie began, he became towards my staff
Mr. on numerous acted hostilely towards mystalfwhile attending meetings
at my'office (See Affidavit of'ij.everly Lowe, ExhibifD). He also expressed displeasure that he
was'being billed for time spent ,by my law clerks and paralegals in coJUlectlon with-his case.
While the billing practices "employed duriitg the scope ofour representation'ofMr.' Gillespi'e fell
within the.fee agy;eetDent he siped (Exhibit B), I advised my staffthat they were no longer. to ..
work'Qn his case in an attempt to appease him.
: -Because my s.taff was hjs case, did not follow oUr sUpldard operating
procedures"ili regards to Mr. documents. As such, he was not provided with the Fact
Sheet to filled out in connection with the Final Judgment ordered against
him ,on Match 27, ,2008. This was ovetsight for which I apologized to Mr. Gillespie,. "
oPpo$ing OOUD$cl, and the .Court in d$ted July 24:, 2008 (Exhibit 1(j ofMr. (;Hllespie;s
, I .:1 "
.
., .,
August 18,.2010
Page 7 of:lO , "
Letter to Mr. Kitchen
.- '
I,etter ofl>oth my propensity as a being to make a mistake, and
my commitment to' the notions ofJustice I fully admitted and took responsibility for'
this mistake in 2008 and worked to ensure that it did not bias,my client. The ludge did not
s.anction 9illespie for contempt and agreed to do ,so ifMr. Gillespie submitted the Fact
Information Sheet ten days. Mr. Gillespie is confused as to the Court's retention' of
as the Information Sheet has been properly filled out, there were no further ' ,
sanctions I regret my oversight in this matter. However, to err is human and I don't
believe that the Rules ofProfessional Conduct contemplate an attorney being more than that.
8. Failure to zealously stay the Final Judgfuent:
Gillespie's milial response' to the Final Judgment ordered, against him was to appeal.
He asked several times that I initiate such but there was not a good and. basis to
do so. ofjudgments is done eX parte, it was not possible for,me to know
what Mr. Rodems was taking in that regard. Upon learning that Mr. Rodems, intended to
Pl'9ceed with I emergencymotion for stay. At this hearing,. ,thejudge
agre<'d to stay the and requested that we post abond. I explained to Mr."(Jillespie that,
ifwe were:able to get his case before ajury, he had agood possibili(y awarded a
judgment that could' act as a setoff against the judgment that was already mitered against him.
He however,. to post 8 bond with the court. This refusal resulted in further collection
efforts agahtst him.
Chapter 77, Florida St8tutes, specifically provides that the judgment credItor is not
to; notice debtor ofa garnishment until after the response ofthe garnishee
has'been received. Because Mr. ,Gillespie' was unwilling to post a bond, there was little] could
do to defend 'against an action that I was, statutorily, not entitled'to notice ofmitii after the action
had already. commenced,..
9. Withdrawal-as CoUnsel: .
.' .\ As stated previously, the relationship between Mr. Gillespieand I .strained soon
after I made my in his case. Mr. Gillespie had, difficulty,understanding, and accepting
the were necessary to advance his claim. When I expl8ined ,hiJD the'
procedures;that were appropriate within the Rules ofCivil
became frustrated .and
" to me, Mr. Gillespie also be{.}8JJ)e hostile towards my staff and often
questioned :their qualifications. This made communication with Mr. Gillespie even more
actualitY, many individuats listed 3 ofMr. grievanQe are
of and the Florida Bar. lfeelit is our duty as Bar Member's, '
GB:inesville; to.help train our future colleagues and s.uch, I have
employed.law.clerks while they are the.University Levin Co'lege of Law. It
was. due. to Mr. unwillingness treat my, staffwith respect .w.ith :"
frustration .'and inability to commUnicate' with me, that I (elt it
aShis Counsel in this maiter (See Exhibit 0). My MO,tion was heard and crinsiderr.J by
...
AugUst 18, 2010
Page 8 of'lO
to Mr. Kitchen
Barton, who agreed 'with me &ld granted the motion.
Furthermore, the issues surrounding communication between Mr. Gillespie, and I had
nothing tOj do with disability. As a' review ofthe communications and transcripts in his case
Mr. Gillespie is a very capable individual and, if'he has difficulty expressing himself; it is
not to those with he is speaking. Our' to effectively conlmunicate was
,predicated on Mr. Gillespie's desire to dictate the legal and proceduralmethods ofhis .
strategies and ideas were in contradiction what permitted by
the Rules c;>fCivil end professional ethics, he was unable or unwilling accept it and
would project h.is frustration onto our relationship. Oue office made concessipDs to
accommodate Gillespie'.s demanding communication requests. For example,' 'we agreed to
have all .conversations recOrded so that he could have them uanscribed and included in
his H.owever, c;lespitc ()ur efforts, communication'continued to
10. Appeals Court Misoond1K:.t:
a. Mr.' aVpea1 was !lased on aposition supported with legal Precedent .
"While I dId pro-rlail, Mr. Rodems' claims were not without merit and certainly did
not rise to the level of frivolity to justify Section 57.1OS, sanctions
against him. "Unfortunately, Mr. made a very Ia.-ge legal blunder in
voluntarily dismissing his claims against BRC. Due to this error, I had ,to take
signifiQatlt steps to reinstate the The statute oflimitations had iolled and,
but fcir.myacti<Jns on his Mr. Gillespie would have no viable causes of
action r ' .. '. '
- I
b. AS,I stated Mr. Gillespie adamant about appealing the Final
Judgment. ,I to him that an appeal was not appropriate, but he
proceeded to file.the appeal anyway without my knowlt'dge' or assistance.
Despite this, I and filed a briefon his behalfin order to protect his legal
position as mucl: as possible. A reply briefwas not necessary, so one was not.:
It is impo11ant .to point out the dichotomous instructions that I often"
received from Gillespie in situations like this one. lie has complained that-.J
billed'hUn too miich without making satisfactory advances in his:case; however,
he often desiredme to take action that was not only unnecessary or. inappropriate,
but.also fee:indUdng. When I wouldchoose not to do so, as in case. of. filing a
reply brief, he' was unhappy with my representation. Conversely,. when I would
attend a hearing" he felt the time it took. me to drive to .Tampa. or prepare for the
.hearing was too much and was unhappy representation.
1.1. WithdIaw81 and pro se response:
.. Correspondence to the court dated October 1, 2009, that is referenced
paragraph 11' of his grievance as a better ofwhy it was for me to
withdraw as his counsel than 81lything I could say to you in support ofmy motion for
.n
I J
I
,
August 18, 2010
Page90flO
.Letter to Mr. Kitchen
As you can see from the four-comers ofthis correspondence, Mr. Gillespie was
contem.po!aneously upset that I had billed too many 'hours on his case, and upset that I had not
taken more' The conflicting nature ofhis requests made it necessary for me to withdraw
as coupseI. Clearly, the fc;elings intimated by Mr. Gillespie in this correspondence to the
court the impossibility of an attorney-client relationship continuing. I have' attached this
correspondence as Exhibit C.
12. RespOnse.to'Allegations bfFraud:
Mr. pointS to a letter I wrote to Governor Crist endorsing Mr. for
as as I committed fraud. I Giilespie, at
the outset ;ofmy that if we can survive summaryjudgment and get in front of a
jury, they to punish a "slimy attorney." This was in regards to. his claims against
BRC and that they lied to This is true today as it was then; jury's
for attorney's tliat are unethical and Mr. Gillespie alleged just that. F':U1hennore,
the comment was based on Mr. Gillespie's claims against Mr. Cook, not Mr. Rodems.
. .
Within the scope ofhis representation ofBRC in this matter, Mr. Rodems conducted
himself as, an honorable and ethical officer ofthe court. At no time did I find his behavior to be
unethical. ; we were engaged in litigation.that was very contentious, Mr. Rodems was at
all times cPrdial and professional and treated me with dignity arid respect. I found Mr. Rodems
to be a coJPpetent and skilled attorney with all ofthe intangible qualities ofcharacter that we
look for iri ofour profession and Jtope to find in those seated on the bench. nerefore,
I 'was 'to the letter attached to Mr. Gillespi'e's grievance when asked.
ill. RESPONSE TO OTHER ALLEGATIONS NOT COVERED BY RULES 9F
PROFESSIONAL CoNDUCT:
, In addition to the foregoing Mr. Gillespie made a number of ..
While they do ,,'not allege a role violation or'any misconduct, they do' impugn my character
as such, 1 brietly respond to them.
Gillespie clearly enjoyed opportunity to litigate this case pro see When it came
time to turn over his representation, however, he became frustrated with his loss ofcontrol over
the .Mr. Gillespie always appeared to me to be an intelligent man, but-he
did not law school and other than one or tWo paralegal courses, has no legal training.
Frankly, Mr. Gillespie often give legal suggestions and advice
kno.wl.edgd to do so. fie requested' that -I take actions that were inapproppate and ..
would give rise to on both bur parts. '
Mr4 to be involved in all ofthe minute ofhis case
and 88 representation ofhim became difficult. He made.threats to my office staffand did'
,not wish to have ,my law clerks work his case. At the same however,
ifi would bill for research or other tasks that he did not wish me to delegate. I tried
" ,
. Aupt 18,,2010
Page to,oflO
Letter to'Mr. Kitchen
to addresS these issues with Mr. Gillespie in an attempt to reach an accord. By
October of2008, was such that my ofhim was no longer possible.
Mr.. Gillespie, claims that I accomplished little in'my representation of him. I believe a
review ofthe proves otherwise. I was successful in reestablishing his claiJns against BRC
,a.tJ.d in seduring'a of the final judgment against was done despite Mr. Gillespie's
c,?ntinuolls.undennining Please recall that Mr. Gillespie had made several. serious
legal errots, including dismissing his claimsafter the expiration ofthe statUte of limitations and
still pending.
. cl9sing paragraph of Mr. Gillespie's grievance is, in my view, telling' ofhis motives.
Prior to Mr. t';Jillespie asked that I cancel his bill. He threatened to file this grievance ifI
did n9t agree to his,demands. Mr. Gillespie signed a fee agreement wherein he to the
at he was charged. My offiCe conducted the work billed to Mr. Gillespie as
per the tmtms ofhis "agreement, and I was not "going conduct this work without compensation
'b,ased threats oCtlris nature. Mr.'Oillespie has filed,five, ifnot more grievances in this
,matter and 'appears to use them as his own form ofleverage.
time I his representation, Mr. Gillespie had no viable claims on which
to base a Contingency fee agreement. He came to me because he needed an attomey to defend
against claims that had been levied against him. I did 80 and was &Iso able to revive the
claims BRC. t was up front with Mr. Gillespie about the possible costs,'ofthis litigation
from the and advised while I not anticipate the cost;. it would l&ely be at least
$18,000', .Jt is apparent to me that Mr. Gillespie is using the Florida Bar's formal complaint
as ,his personal counsel in trying to leverage a'returit ofthe fees I earned in ;
prosecuting"and 'defending ClailtlS during my representation ofhim. I hope that, upon of"
the forego!ng, the same is appMent to you. Additionally, I hope it is apparent that at all I
ofMc. i conducted myselfwith dignity, and I'
WIthin Rules ofProfessloilal Conduct. If I can proVIde you With any further ..
infonnation, please feel free, to contact me. . ,..... I
. CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE I
I CERTIFY that!Jl1 this dayof., :August,,2010, a cOpy f<?-regoing
disclosUre was furnished. DaVid M. Sams , a' member ofthe law finn of
Office ofRobert W. Bauer, P.A. ,With which I was associated at the time ofthe
I
act(s).giving rise to the complaint in The Florida, Bar File. No. (8B).
. . . .. , . I
"I
I'
i
I
I
..
I
I
I
co: Neil ,Gillespie
'S092:SW 115th Loop
Ocala, :Florida 3448.1