The State Bar ae OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL of California INTAKE 845 5 Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CASOOI7 713-765-1382 September 4, 2019 Eugene Warner 355 Kalanianaole Ave. Hilo, HI 96720 RE: Case Number: 19-0-11422 Respondent: Christopher W. Hellmich Dear Mr. Warner: ‘The State Bar's Office of Chief Trial Counsel has reviewed your complaint against Christopher W. Hellmich to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to prosecute a possible violation of the State Bar Act and/or Rules of Professional Conduct. You submitted a complaint to the New York Grievance Committee which referred the matter to the State Bar of California, In your complaint you alleged that Mr. Hellmich was one of a number of attorneys involved in a class action lawsuit where it was discovered that lead counsel, Gary B. Friedman, shared confidential information and confidential attorney work product with a third party; Keila Revalo, an attorney who was later criminally prosecuted for defrauding her former firm and a former client. In the article you provided, it explained that Mr. Mr. Friedman reached a settlement in the class action case and filed a settlement agreement with the court in 2015. The settlement agreement was rejected by the court on ‘August 4, 2015, after emails from 2012 between Mr. Friedman and Ms. Revalo were uncovered. Although Mr. Hellmich was not identified in the article, you have stated that his name appeared ‘on a 10 page list of attorneys which Ms. Ravelo claimed were all involved in a scheme against approximately 15 million retailers to have them accept pennies on the dollar from American Express, MasterCard and Visa. Based on our evaluation of the information provided, we are closing your complaint. In order to investigate allegations of attorney misconduct, the State Bar needs specific facts which, if proved, would establish a violation of the attorney's ethical duties. Conclusions based on San Franco OMe Los Angie otce 80 Howard Street 45. Fiveron Stet San Franco, CA 9105 wor calbar.e2 gov Los Angles, cA 90017Eugene Warner September 4, 2019 Page 2 speculation and not supported by facts are insufficient to warrant investigation. We have determined that your complaint does not present sufficient facts to support an investigation. As noted above, the article makes no mention of Mr. Hellmich as having been involved in the ‘communications between Mr. Friedman and Ms. Revalo. Moreover, review of the court's ‘August 4, 2015, order confirms no findings were made as to Mr. Hellmich having been involved in the email exchanges or in the sharing of work product information. Although the court expresses concern that the other co-lead class counsel in the case may have been aware of the misconduct, it does not appear any findings were made addressing these concerns. Further, it was noted in the order that Mr. Hellmich had separated from the firm that had been appointed as co-lead class counsel before July 2013, As such, Mr. Hellmich did not participate in the November 2013 mediation which resulted in the terms of the settlement agreement that the court rejected on August 4, 2015. In addition, rule 5.21, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California, prohibits the State Bar from initiating disciplinary proceedings against an attorney for alleged misconduct occurring more than five years from the date of the violation(s). The misconduct raised by the court in the August 4, 2015 order took place in 2012. Mr. Hellmich had separated from the firm that was appointed as co-lead class counsel by July 2013. As such, Mr. Hellmich did not participate in the mediation which resulted in the settlement agreement which the court ultimately found to be neither procedurally nor substantively fair. The rule recognizes various exceptions to extend the five-year period, including for example, when the attorney continues to represent the complainant; when the complainant is a minor; when there are pending civil, criminal, or administrative investigations or proceedings based on the same acts against the attorney; or when the attorney conceals facts about the misconduct. After reviewing whether any of the possible exceptions available under rule 5.21 would apply to permit your complaint to proceed, we conclude that your complaint fails to meet an exception to the five year limitations rule. However, if you have additional information showing that an exception applies, you may request in writing that your complaint be reopened. In explaining. why an exception may apply, please give specific dates of possible violations so that we may properly evaluate your additional information. For these reasons, the State Bar is closing this matter.Eugene Warner September 4, 2019 Page 3 If you have new facts and circumstances that you believe may change our determination to close your complaint, you may submit a written statement with the new information to the Intake Unit for review. If you have any questions about this process, you may call me at 213- 765-1382. If you leave a voice message, be sure to clearly identify the lawyer complained of, the case number assigned, and your telephone number including the area code. We should return your call within two business days. Ifyou are not aware of new facts or circumstances but otherwise disagree with the decision to close your complaint, you may submit a request for review by the State Bar’s Complaint Review Unit, which will review your complaint and the Intake Unit’s decision to close the complaint. ‘The Complaint Review Unit may reopen your complaint if it determines that your complaint ‘was inappropriately closed or that you presented new, significant evidence to support your complaint. To request review by the Complaint Review Unit, you must submit your request in writing, together with any new evidence you wish to be considered, post-marked within 90, days of the date of this letter, to: The State Bar of California Complaint Review Unit Office of General Counsel 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-1617 ‘We would appreciate if you would complete a short, anonymous survey about your experience with filing your complaint. While your responses to the survey will not change the outcome of the complaint you filed against the attorney, the State Bar will use your answers to help improve the services we provide to the public. The survey can be found at http://bit.ly/StateBarSurvey1. Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the State Bar. Sincerely, Billard jing Attorney