Lund V Shumway

1 Sandra Slaton, Esq.
SBA# 006454
Matthew J. Monaco, Esq. SBA#033926
2 HORNE SLATON, PLLC
6720 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 285
3 Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Tel: (480) 483-2178
4 Fax: (480) 367-0691
slaton@horneslaton.com
5 monaco@horneslaton.com
Attorneys for Bradford Lund
6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
7
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
8
THE SHUMWAY GROUP, PLC, an
6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 285
9 Arizona professional limited liability Case No. CV2018-010331

Horne Slaton, PLLC
company, f/k/a SHUMWAY LAW

Scottsdale, AZ 85253
10 OFFICES, PLC, an Arizona professional DEFENDANT’S ANSWER,

limited liability company, COUNTERCLAIM, AND THIRD-PARTY
11 COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
12
v.
(Assigned to the Hon. Hugh Hegyi)
13 BRADFORD LUND, an unmarried man,
14 Defendant.
15 BRADFORD LUND,
16 Counter Plaintiff
17 v.
18 THE SHUMWAY GROUP, PLC, an

Arizona professional limited liability
19 company, f/k/a SHUMWAY LAW
OFFICES, PLC, an Arizona professional
20 limited liability company,
21 Counter Defendants.
22 BRADFORD LUND,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
23
24
25 1
1 v.
2 JEFF A. SHUMWAY and JANE DOE

SHUMWAY, a married couple, and XYZ
3 Entities 1-100.
4 Third-Party Defendants.
7
Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, Bradford Lund (“Bradford Lund”), by and through counsel
8
undersigned hereby answers the complaint as follows:
9
Horne Slaton, PLLC
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10
1. Answering paragraph 1: Bradford Lund lacks sufficient information to admit or deny
11
the allegations in paragraph 1, and, therefore, denies the same.
12
2. Answering paragraph 2: Bradford Lund admits the allegation in said paragraph.
13
3. Answering paragraph 3: Bradford Lund admits that venue is proper in this Court.
14
Bradford Lund denies all of the further allegations in said paragraph.
15
4. Answering paragraph 4: Bradford Lund lack sufficient information to admit or deny the
16
allegations in paragraph 4, and, therefore, denies the same.
17
5. Answering paragraph 5: Bradford Lund admits that he was represented by Jeff
18
Shumway. As to all other allegations in paragraph 5, Bradford Lund lacks sufficient knowledge to
19
either admit or deny said paragraph, and therefore denies the same.
20
6. Answering paragraph 6: Bradford Lund lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or
21
deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6, and, therefore, denies the same.
22
23
24
25 2
1 7. Answering paragraph 7: Bradford Lund admits that Jeff Shumway provided legal
2 services and denies the remainder of the allegations in said paragraph.
3 8. Answering paragraph 8: Bradford Lund denies paragraph 8.
4 9. Answering paragraph 9: Bradford Lund admits that he made several payments to Jeff
5 Shumway and denies the remainder of paragraph 9 that no such payments ever brought the balance to
6 zero.
7 10. Answering paragraph 10: Bradford Lund lacks sufficient information to either admit or
8 deny that he has not made a payment since May 15, 2015, and, therefore, denies the same. Bradford
9 Lund denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 10.

Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 11. Answering paragraph 11: Bradford Lund denies paragraph 11 in its entirety.
11 12. Answering paragraph 12: Bradford Lund paragraph 12 in its entirety.
15 16. Answering paragraph 16: Bradford Lund designates this as a Tier 2 case, as that term
16 is described in Rule 26.2, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
17 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
18 17. Bradford Lund denies any allegation not specifically admitted above.
19 18. Defendant incorporates by reference as if set forth in their entirety each and every
20 allegation contained in the Counter-Claim and Third-Party Complaint below as affirmative defenses.
21 19. Defendant also incorporates by reference as if set forth in their entirety each and every
22 allegation contained in the Counter-Claim and Third-Party Complaint below as an offset to any alleged
23 amounts that Plaintiff asserts in the Complaint.
24
25 3
1 20. Defendant reserves the right to plead further affirmative defenses including those
2 affirmative defenses set forth in Rules 8(c) and 12(b) and 19 of the Arizona Rules of Civil
3 Procedure and A.R.S. § 12-2501, et. seq. as may be justified by the facts determined during
4 discovery. The purpose of alleging these additional defenses is to avoid waiver of same and at
5 such time as discovery reveals a good faith basis to support said defenses, leave will be sought to
6 amend this Answer accordingly.
7 21. Bradford Lund demands a trial by jury.
8 THEREFORE, Bradford Lund requests that Plaintiff take nothing, and that he be awarded his
9 attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, as Plaintiff has alleged this
Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 Complaint arises out of a contract.
11 COUNTERCLAIM
12 Bradford Lund, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff (“Bradford Lund”), hereby alleges as follows:
13 1. Bradford Lund is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
14 2. Upon information and belief, Counter-Defendant, The Shumway Group, PLC, f/k/a, or
15 a/k/a, Shumway Law Offices, PLC, (hereinafter “Shumway Law”) is a member managed Arizona
16 professional limited liability company, whose sole member is the Maui Scottsdale Trust I. Jeff A.
17 Shumway is the trustee of the Maui Scottsdale Trust I. Shumway Law employs attorneys licensed to
18 practice in the State of Arizona.
19 3. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant Jeff A. Shumway (“Shumway”) is
20 an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Arizona and works for, is a member of, is the
21 owner/operator of, is a partner in, or is the agent of Shumway Law. All of the acts or omissions alleged
22 herein were done for the benefit of the marital community if any exists. The true and correct identity
23 of Jane Doe Shumway will be added as soon as it is known.
24
25 4
1 4. Upon information and belief, XYZ Entities are unnamed, undiscovered corporations,
2 partnerships, or other entity that may be discovered and added when they are discovered.
3 5. Shumway, Shumway Law, and XYZ ENTITIES will collectively be referred to as
4 “Shumway Defendant”.
5 6. Shumway Law is vicariously liable for the actions or omissions of its agents including
6 Shumway. At all times alleged herein, upon information and belief, Shumway is acting within the
7 scope of his employment or agency with Shumway Law.
8 7. All acts or omissions by Shumway Law, Shumway, or any agent thereof were done in
9 Maricopa County, Arizona. This Court has venue over this matter.
Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
11 8. Bradford Lund incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as
12 if set forth in full herein.
13 9. In 2009, Bradford Lund retained Shumway, whether through Shumway Law or some
14 other professional limited liability company to perform as local counsel for his California attorneys
15 from Irell & Manella.
16 10. On December 1, 2009, Shumway moved to associate the pro hac vice appearances of
17 John C. Hueston, Evan Borges, and L. Michelle W. Choy all of the law firm Irell & Manella. Shumway
18 filed his own Notice of Appearance on behalf of Bradford Lund that same date.
19 11. On or about September 14, 2010, Shumway became primary counsel following Irell &
20 Manella’s withdrawal.
21 12. Shumway worked as the attorney for Bradford Lund in a guardianship and
22 conservatorship proceeding in the Maricopa County Superior Court.
23
24
25 5
1 13. Shumway filed countless documents, including pleadings and motions signed pursuant
2 to Rule 11, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, in the Superior Court, together with documents filed in
3 the appellate court and United States District Court, representing Bradford Lund was competent and
4 was not in need of a guardianship or conservatorship.
5 14. Shumway, beginning in March, 2014, began secretly meeting with the court-appointed
6 guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Joseph Boyle, and the GAL’s attorney, Alisa Gray to conspire against
7 Bradford Lund to have a conservator appointed over Bradford Lund.
8 15. Shumway did not inform Bradford Lund of these secret meetings, nor did Shumway
9 Defendant ever receive consent or authorization from Bradford Lund to have these meetings.
Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 16. Not only was Shumway meeting with the GAL, and the GAL’s attorney, Shumway
11 drafted documents against his own client, Bradford Lund, and gave them to the GAL, and the GAL’s
12 attorney.
13 17. Included in the draft documents were a draft affidavit to support the appointment of a
14 conservator, a draft petition for the appointment of a conservator, and a draft proposed order appointing
15 the GAL as Bradford Lund’s conservator.
16 18. During these conspiracies against Bradford Lund, Shumway continued to bill Bradford
17 Lund for services as his attorney.
18 19. Bradford Lund terminated the attorney-client relationship with Shumway on July 21,
19 2015.
20 20. On July 22, 2015, Shumway signed and filed an Emergency Motion For Court
21 Appointed Counsel Pursuant To Rule 19, Arizona Rules Probate Procedure And A.R.S. § [14]-5303
22 (C) and 5407 (B) and ER 1.14.
23 21. Shumway stated in the July 22, 2015 Emergency Motion inter alia:
24
25 6
1 To the extent that the Court wishes to take testimony from Shumway related to this
Motion, Shumway suggests that his testimony be taken ex parte, out of the presence
2 of all other parties to this matter. By taking evidence ex parte the Court will
preserve Bradford’s confidential privileged information.
3
22. Instead of advocating for Bradford Lund as he agreed to do, Shumway
4
betrayed his client, Bradford Lund.
5
23. Shumway’s betrayal forced Bradford Lund to fight against not only his
6
7 estranged family members attempting to usurp his freedom, but also his own attorney
8 together with the court-appointed GAL.

9 24. Bradford Lund first began learning of some of Shumway Defendant’s

Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 egregious conduct in July, 2015.
11 25. Shumway Defendant served as Bradford Lund’s attorney until he was fired
12 on July 21, 2015.
13
26. In September, 2015, Bradford Lund was forced to file a Motion For
14
Temporary Restraining Order to prevent Shumway Defendant from filing attorney-client
15
privileged and/or work-product with the Court. And it was forced to enter an order
16
restraining Shumway Defendant from such action
17
27. Bradford Lund was alerted to even more of Shumway Defendant’s
18
egregious conduct and betrayal in a meeting on October 2, 2015.
19
20 28. The Shumway Defendant’s conduct included but was not limited to
21 a. Upon information and belief, beginning in March, 2014, there were
22 extensive secret meetings between Shumway Defendant, the GAL, and/or
23 the GAL’s attorney.
24
25 7
1 b. Upon information and belief, the purpose of these meetings was to
2 work together to have a conservator appointed over Bradford Lund, one of

3 the appointments Bradford Lund hired Shumway Defendant to fight
4
against.
5
c. Shumway Defendant secretly drafted documents to have a
6
conservator over Bradford Lund.
7
d. Shumway Defendant’s secret draft documents included that the
8
GAL should himself be appointed as Bradford Lund’s conservator.
9
Horne Slaton, PLLC
e. Prior to Shumway Defendant’s betrayal, the GAL had not filed a

10
11
substantive pleading in the case for more than two years.
12 f. Upon information and belief, Shumway Defendant’s plan was to
13 have the GAL appointed as Bradford Lund’s conservator and to have
14 himself court appointed as counsel making it virtually impossible for
15 Bradford Lund to fire him. This plan was to ensure that Shumway
16 Defendant would continue to collect legal fees approved by the court
17
instead of his client, Bradford Lund.
18
29. On October 28, 2015, an even greater extent of Shumway Defendant’s
19
betrayal was exposed. The GAL signed an affidavit in support of a pleading opposing
20
Bradford Lund’s motion to terminate him in which the GAL declared under oath that
21
Shumway Defendant provided him with a draft Affidavit, Draft Petition For Appointment
22
of A Conservator and a draft Order.
23
24
25 8
1 30. Shumway Defendant did not notify or inform Bradford Lund, his client, of
2 any of these actions at any time during his representation. Shumway Defendant’s actions
3 were secret and one-sided, done behind Bradford Lund’s back without his knowledge or
4
consent.
5
COUNT 1
6
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
7
31. Bradford Lund incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as
8
if stated in full herein.
9
Horne Slaton, PLLC
32. Bradford Lund entered into a valid written contract with Shumway Defendant to provide
10
legal services.
11
33. Shumway Defendant breached that agreement by failing to provide the services
12
contracted for. Furthermore, Shumway Defendant actively went behind back of their client, Bradford
13
Lund, to secure the very appointment he was hired to fight against.
14
34. Shumway Defendant’s breach has caused Bradford Lund damages in an amount to be
15
proven at trial.
16
35. Bradford Lund asserts that this action arises out of a contract, and therefore, Shumway
17
Defendant should be required to pay his attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and his fees
18
pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.
19
COUNT 2
20
(BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING)
21
36. Bradford Lund incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as
22
if stated in full herein.
23
24
25 9
1 37. Each contract has the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which guarantees
2 that both parties to the contract will act in a manner so as not to deprive the other of the reasonably
3 anticipated benefits of the agreement.
4 38. Shumway Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by depriving
5 Bradford Lund of the legal services for which he contracted for. Shumway Defendant, without
6 Bradford Lund’s knowledge or consent, conspired with the GAL and the GAL’s attorney to have the
7 court appoint a conservator over Bradford Lund.
8 39. The actions or omissions by Shumway Defendant has damaged Bradford Lund in an
9 amount to be proven at trial.

Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 40. Bradford Lund asserts that this action arises out of a contract, and therefore, Shumway
11 Defendant should be required to pay his attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and his fees
12 pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.
13 COUNT 3
14 (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)
16 if stated in full herein.
17 42. Shumway Defendant at all times owed Plaintiff a duty of loyalty as provided in
18 the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, ER 1.7.
19 43. As discussed above Shumway Defendant breached the duties owed to Plaintiff in
20 the following ways (but not limited to):
21 a. Despite the duty of loyalty, Shumway Defendant attempted to have a
22 conservator appointed over Bradford Lund. Shumway Defendant was hired for
23 the purpose of preventing this very appointment from happening.
24
25 10
1 b. Shumway Defendant failed to maintain their duty of confidentiality, ER
2 1.6.
3 c. Shumway Defendant failed to withdraw when Plaintiff fired him, ER
4 1.16.
5 44. Shumway Defendant continued to charge Bradford Lund for legal services while
6 working behind his back.
7 45. As a direct and proximate cause of one or more of the intentional actions or
8 omissions of Shumway Defendant, Bradford Lund sustained general and special damages.
9 46. The actions or omissions of Shumway Defendant meet the legal standard of
Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 acting with an evil hand guided by and evil mind, and therefore, punitive damages are
11 appropriate.
12 COUNT 4
13 (FRAUD)
14 47. Bradford Lund incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding
15 paragraphs as if stated in full herein.
16 48. The legal elements of fraud are: (1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its
17 materiality; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the speaker's
18 intent that it be acted upon by the recipient in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the
19 hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer's reliance on its truth; (8) the hearer's right to rely
20 on it; (9) the hearer's consequent and proximate injury.
21 a. Shumway Defendant made representations to Bradford Lund that he
22 would advocate for Bradford Lund as his lawyer and that he would fight against
23 the imposition of a guardianship and conservatorship.
24
25 11
1 b. Shumway Defendant’s representations were demonstrably false.
2 Shumway Defendant drafted draft documents which he submitted to the GAL
3 including a petition to appoint a conservator, a proposed order appointing the
4 GAL as that conservator, and a draft affidavit in support of the petition.
5 c. Shumway Defendant’s representations were material to Bradford Lund
6 continuing the attorney-client relationship.
7 d. Shumway Defendant were aware of the falsity of their representations as
8 Shumway himself was working behind Bradford Lund’s back to impose a

9 conservatorship.
Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 e. Shumway Defendant intended that Bradford Lund rely on their
11 representations orally to Bradford Lund, and in written pleadings and filed Court
12 documents that Bradford Lund was not in need of a conservator or guardian to
13 continue the attorney-client relationship.
14 f. Bradford Lund was ignorant of the falsity of Shumway Defendant’s
15 representations until approximately October 2, 2015.
16 g. Bradford Lund relied on the truth of the representation Shumway
17 Defendant was engaged to represent him in his opposition to his estranged family
18 members attempts to have a guardianship and/or conservatorship appointed over
19 him.
20 h. Bradford Lund is entitled to rely on the truth of his own attorney’s
21 representations.
22 i. Shumway Defendant’s conduct caused damage to Bradford Lund in
23 increased legal fees and the harm caused by a person fighting a guardianship and
24
25 12
1 conservatorship having his own attorney betray him and attempt to become a
2 witness against him.
3 49. But for Shumway Defendant’s conduct Bradford Lund would not have had to
4 endure such monetary damage and pain and suffering.
5 50. Shumway Defendant’s conduct meets the legal standard of an evil hand guided
6 by an evil mind to warrant the imposition of punitive damages to deter Shumway Defendant and
7 others from engaging in similar conduct.
8 COUNT 5
9 (LEGAL NEGLIGENCE)
Horne Slaton, PLLC
12 52. Shumway Defendants owed a duty to Bradford Lund because they were hired to
13 be his lawyer and advocate.
14 53. Shumway Defendants breached that duty as described through this Counter-
15 Claim and Third-Party Complaint.
16 54. Shumway Defendants’ acts and omissions were the actual and proximate causes
17 of Bradford Lund’s damages.
18 55. But for Shumway Defendants’ acts and omissions Bradford Lund would not have
19 suffered damages and Bradford Lund would have prevailed on the merits in the action at a much
20 sooner date, thereby reducing the amount of fees paid and damages incurred.
21 56. Bradford Lund has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
22 57. Bradford Lund demands a jury trial on all counts alleged herein.
23
24
25 13
1 THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Bradford Lund requests that this Court enter
2 judgment in his favor in an amount to be proven at trial including general, special, and punitive damages
3 as alleged herein. Furthermore, Bradford Lund requests that attorneys’ fees and costs should be
4 awarded to him pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-341 and § 25-341.01.
5 THIRD-PARTY CLAIM
6 Bradford Lund, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff (“Bradford Lund”), hereby alleges as follows:
7 1. Bradford Lund is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
8 2. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant Jeff A. Shumway (“Shumway”) is

9 an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Arizona and works for, is a member of, is the
Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 owner/operator of, is a partner in, or is the agent of Shumway Law. All of the acts or omissions alleged
11 herein were done for the benefit of the marital community if any exists. The true and correct identity
12 of Jane Doe Shumway will be added as soon as it is known.
13 3. Upon information and belief, XYZ Entities are unnamed, undiscovered corporations,
14 partnerships, or other entity that may be discovered and added when they are discovered.
15 4. Shumway, Shumway Law, and XYZ ENTITIES will collectively be referred to as
16 “Shumway Defendant”.
17 5. Shumway Law is vicariously liable for the actions or omissions of its agents including
18 Shumway. At all times alleged herein, upon information and belief, Shumway is acting within the
19 scope of his employment or agency with Shumway Law.
20 6. All acts or omissions by Shumway Law, Shumway, or any agent thereof were done in
21 Maricopa County, Arizona. This Court has venue over this matter.
22 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
23
24
25 14
2 if set forth in full herein.
3 8. In 2009, Bradford Lund retained Shumway, whether through Shumway Law or some
4 other professional limited liability company to perform as local counsel for his California attorneys
5 from Irell & Manella.
6 9. On December 1, 2009, Shumway moved to associate the pro hac vice appearances of
7 John C. Hueston, Evan Borges, and L. Michelle W. Choy all of the law firm Irell & Manella. Shumway
8 filed his own Notice of Appearance on behalf of Bradford Lund that same date.
9 10. On or about September 14, 2010, Shumway became primary counsel following Irell &
Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 Manella’s withdrawal.
11 11. Shumway worked as the attorney for Bradford Lund in a guardianship and
12 conservatorship proceeding in the Maricopa County Superior Court.
13 12. Shumway filed countless documents, including pleadings and motions signed pursuant
14 to Rule 11, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, in the Superior Court, together with documents filed in
15 the appellate court and United States District Court, representing Bradford Lund was competent and
16 was not in need of a guardianship or conservatorship.
17 13. Shumway, beginning in March, 2014, began secretly meeting with the court-appointed
18 guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Joseph Boyle, and the GAL’s attorney, Alisa Gray to conspire against
19 Bradford Lund to have a conservator appointed over Bradford Lund.
20 14. Shumway did not inform Bradford Lund of these secret meetings, nor did Shumway
21 Defendant ever receive consent or authorization from Bradford Lund to have these meetings.
22
23
24
25 15
1 15. Not only was Shumway meeting with the GAL, and the GAL’s attorney, Shumway
2 drafted documents against his own client, Bradford Lund, and gave them to the GAL, and the GAL’s
3 attorney.
4 16. Included in the draft documents were a draft affidavit to support the appointment of a
5 conservator, a draft petition for the appointment of a conservator, and a draft proposed order appointing
6 the GAL as Bradford Lund’s conservator.
7 17. During these conspiracies against Bradford Lund, Shumway continued to bill Bradford
8 Lund for services as his attorney.

9 18. Bradford Lund terminated the attorney-client relationship with Shumway on July 21,
Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 2015.
11 19. On July 22, 2015, Shumway signed and filed an Emergency Motion For Court
12 Appointed Counsel Pursuant To Rule 19, Arizona Rules Probate Procedure And A.R.S. § [14]-5303
13 (C) and 5407 (B) and ER 1.14.
14 20. Shumway stated in the July 22, 2015 Emergency Motion inter alia:
15 To the extent that the Court wishes to take testimony from Shumway related to this
Motion, Shumway suggests that his testimony be taken ex parte, out of the presence
16 of all other parties to this matter. By taking evidence ex parte the Court will
preserve Bradford’s confidential privileged information.
17
21. Instead of advocating for Bradford Lund as he agreed to do, Shumway
18
betrayed his client, Bradford Lund.
19
22. Shumway’s betrayal forced Bradford Lund to fight against not only his
20
21 estranged family members attempting to usurp his freedom, but also his own attorney
22 together with the court-appointed GAL.
23
24
25 16
1 23. Bradford Lund first began learning of some of Shumway Defendant’s
2 egregious conduct in July, 2015.

3 24. Shumway Defendant served as Bradford Lund’s attorney until he was fired
4
on July 21, 2015.
5
25. In September, 2015, Bradford Lund was forced to file a Motion For
6
Temporary Restraining Order to prevent Shumway Defendant from filing attorney-client
7
privileged and/or work-product with the Court. And it was forced to enter an order
8
restraining Shumway Defendant from such action
9
Horne Slaton, PLLC
26. Bradford Lund was alerted to even more of Shumway Defendant’s

10
11
egregious conduct and betrayal in a meeting on October 2, 2015.
12 27. The Shumway Defendant’s conduct included but was not limited to
13 a. Upon information and belief, beginning in March, 2014, there were
14 extensive secret meetings between Shumway Defendant, the GAL, and/or
15 the GAL’s attorney.

16 b. Upon information and belief, the purpose of these meetings was to
17
work together to have a conservator appointed over Bradford Lund, one of
18
the appointments Bradford Lund hired Shumway Defendant to fight
19
against.
20
c. Shumway Defendant secretly drafted documents to have a
21
conservator over Bradford Lund.
22
23
24
25 17
1 d. Shumway Defendant’s secret draft documents included that the
2 GAL should himself be appointed as Bradford Lund’s conservator.

3 e. Prior to Shumway Defendant’s betrayal, the GAL had not filed a
4
substantive pleading in the case for more than two years.
5
f. Upon information and belief, Shumway Defendant’s plan was to
6
have the GAL appointed as Bradford Lund’s conservator and to have
7
himself court appointed as counsel making it virtually impossible for
8
Bradford Lund to fire him. This plan was to ensure that Shumway
9
Horne Slaton, PLLC
Defendant would continue to collect legal fees approved by the court

10
11
instead of his client, Bradford Lund.
12 28. On October 28, 2015, an even greater extent of Shumway Defendant’s
13 betrayal was exposed. The GAL signed an affidavit in support of a pleading opposing
14 Bradford Lund’s motion to terminate him in which the GAL declared under oath that
15 Shumway Defendant provided him with a draft Affidavit, Draft Petition For Appointment
16 of A Conservator and a draft Order.
17
29. Shumway Defendant did not notify or inform Bradford Lund, his client, of
18
any of these actions at any time during his representation. Shumway Defendant’s actions
19
were secret and one-sided, done behind Bradford Lund’s back without his knowledge or
20
consent.
21
COUNT 1
22
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
23
24
25 18
3 31. Bradford Lund entered into a valid written contract with Shumway Defendant to provide
4 legal services.
5 32. Shumway Defendant breached that agreement by failing to provide the services
6 contracted for. Furthermore, Shumway Defendant actively went behind back of their client, Bradford
7 Lund, to secure the very appointment he was hired to fight against.
8 33. Shumway Defendant’s breach has caused Bradford Lund damages in an amount to be
9 proven at trial.
Horne Slaton, PLLC
13 COUNT 2
14 (BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING)
17 36. Each contract has the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which guarantees
18 that both parties to the contract will act in a manner so as not to deprive the other of the reasonably
19 anticipated benefits of the agreement.
20 37. Shumway Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by depriving
21 Bradford Lund of the legal services for which he contracted for. Shumway Defendant, without
22 Bradford Lund’s knowledge or consent, conspired with the GAL and the GAL’s attorney to have the
23 court appoint a conservator over Bradford Lund.
24
25 19
1 38. The actions or omissions by Shumway Defendant has damaged Bradford Lund in an
2 amount to be proven at trial.
6 COUNT 3
7 (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)

Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 41. Shumway Defendant at all times owed Plaintiff a duty of loyalty as provided in
11 the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, ER 1.7.
12 42. As discussed above Shumway Defendant breached the duties owed to Plaintiff in
13 the following ways (but not limited to):
14 a. Despite the duty of loyalty, Shumway Defendant attempted to have a
15 conservator appointed over Bradford Lund. Shumway Defendant was hired for
16 the purpose of preventing this very appointment from happening.
17 b. Shumway Defendant failed to maintain their duty of confidentiality, ER
18 1.6.
19 c. Shumway Defendant failed to withdraw when Plaintiff fired him, ER
20 1.16.
21 43. Shumway Defendant continued to charge Bradford Lund for legal services while
22 working behind his back.
23
24
25 20
1 44. As a direct and proximate cause of one or more of the intentional actions or
2 omissions of Shumway Defendant, Bradford Lund sustained general and special damages.
3 45. The actions or omissions of Shumway Defendant meet the legal standard of
4 acting with an evil hand guided by and evil mind, and therefore, punitive damages are
5 appropriate.
6 COUNT 4
7 (FRAUD)


Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 47. The legal elements of fraud are: (1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its
11 materiality; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the speaker's
12 intent that it be acted upon by the recipient in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the
13 hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer's reliance on its truth; (8) the hearer's right to rely
14 on it; (9) the hearer's consequent and proximate injury.
15 a. Shumway Defendant made representations to Bradford Lund that he
16 would advocate for Bradford Lund as his lawyer and that he would fight against
17 the imposition of a guardianship and conservatorship.
18 b. Shumway Defendant’s representations were demonstrably false.
19 Shumway Defendant drafted draft documents which he submitted to the GAL
20 including a petition to appoint a conservator, a proposed order appointing the
21 GAL as that conservator, and a draft affidavit in support of the petition.
22 c. Shumway Defendant’s representations were material to Bradford Lund
23 continuing the attorney-client relationship.
24
25 21
1 d. Shumway Defendant were aware of the falsity of their representations as
2 Shumway himself was working behind Bradford Lund’s back to impose a
3 conservatorship.
4 e. Shumway Defendant intended that Bradford Lund rely on their
5 representations orally to Bradford Lund, and in written pleadings and filed Court
6 documents that Bradford Lund was not in need of a conservator or guardian to
7 continue the attorney-client relationship.
8 f. Bradford Lund was ignorant of the falsity of Shumway Defendant’s

9 representations until approximately October 2, 2015.

Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 g. Bradford Lund relied on the truth of the representation Shumway
11 Defendant was engaged to represent him in his opposition to his estranged family
12 members attempts to have a guardianship and/or conservatorship appointed over
13 him.
14 h. Bradford Lund is entitled to rely on the truth of his own attorney’s
15 representations.
16 i. Shumway Defendant’s conduct caused damage to Bradford Lund in
17 increased legal fees and the harm caused by a person fighting a guardianship and
18 conservatorship having his own attorney betray him and attempt to become a
19 witness against him.
20 48. But for Shumway Defendant’s conduct Bradford Lund would not have had to
21 endure such monetary damage and pain and suffering.
22
23
24
25 22
1 49. Shumway Defendant’s conduct meets the legal standard of an evil hand guided
2 by an evil mind to warrant the imposition of punitive damages to deter Shumway Defendant and
3 others from engaging in similar conduct.
4 COUNT 5
5 (LEGAL NEGLIGENCE)
8 51. Shumway Defendants owed a duty to Bradford Lund because they were hired to
9 be his lawyer and advocate.

Horne Slaton, PLLC
10 52. Shumway Defendants breached that duty as described through this Counter-
11 Claim and Third-Party Complaint.
12 53. Shumway Defendants’ acts and omissions were the actual and proximate causes
13 of Bradford Lund’s damages.
14 54. But for Shumway Defendants’ acts and omissions Bradford Lund would not have
15 suffered damages and Bradford Lund would have prevailed on the merits in the action at a much
16 sooner date, thereby reducing the amount of fees paid and damages incurred.
17 55. Bradford Lund has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
18 56. Bradford Lund demands a jury trial on all counts alleged herein.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 23
1 THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Bradford Lund requests that this Court enter
2 judgment in his favor in an amount to be proven at trial including general, special, and punitive
3 damages as alleged herein. Furthermore, Bradford Lund requests that attorneys’ fees and costs should
4 be awarded to him pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-341 and § 25-341.01.
5 DATED this 24th day of September, 2018.
6
HORNE SLATON, PLLC
7 By: /s/ Sandra Slaton
Sandra Slaton, Esq.
8 Matthew J. Monaco, Esq.
Attorneys for Bradford Lund
9
Horne Slaton, PLLC
ORIGINAL of the foregoing was e-filed this

10 day 24th day of September, 2018, with:
11 Clerk of Court
Maricopa County Superior Court
12
COPY of the foregoing was e-delivered
13 this 24th day of September, 2018 to:
14 The Honorable Hugh Hegyi
15
COPY of the foregoing was e-served/emailed/
16 and mailed, U.S. Mail first class, on
this 24th day of September, 2018, to:
17
Todd A. Schultz, Esq.
18 7600 N. 15th St., Ste. 150
Phoenix, AZ 85020
19 tas@roselanelaw.com
20 By: mjm
21
22
23
24
25 24

Lund V Shumway

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lund V Shumway

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 Sandra Slaton, Esq.

9 Arizona professional limited liability Case No. CV2018-010331

company, f/k/a SHUMWAY LAW

10 OFFICES, PLC, an Arizona professional DEFENDANT’S ANSWER,

18 THE SHUMWAY GROUP, PLC, an

2 JEFF A. SHUMWAY and JANE DOE

2 services and denies the remainder of the allegations in said paragraph.

3 8. Answering paragraph 8: Bradford Lund denies paragraph 8.

9 Lund denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 10.

11 12. Answering paragraph 12: Bradford Lund paragraph 12 in its entirety.

12 13. Answering paragraph 13: Bradford Lund paragraph 13 in its entirety.

13 14. Answering paragraph 14: Bradford Lund paragraph 14 in its entirety.

14 15. Answering paragraph 15: Bradford Lund paragraph 15 in its entirety.

16 is described in Rule 26.2, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

23 amounts that Plaintiff asserts in the Complaint.

6 amend this Answer accordingly.

7 21. Bradford Lund demands a trial by jury.

10 Complaint arises out of a contract.

12 Bradford Lund, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff (“Bradford Lund”), hereby alleges as follows:

13 1. Bradford Lund is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

18 practice in the State of Arizona.

19 3. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant Jeff A. Shumway (“Shumway”) is

23 of Jane Doe Shumway will be added as soon as it is known.

3 5. Shumway, Shumway Law, and XYZ ENTITIES will collectively be referred to as

7 scope of his employment or agency with Shumway Law.

11 8. Bradford Lund incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as

12 if set forth in full herein.

15 from Irell & Manella.

22 conservatorship proceeding in the Maricopa County Superior Court.

4 was not in need of a guardianship or conservatorship.

7 Bradford Lund to have a conservator appointed over Bradford Lund.

15 the GAL as Bradford Lund’s conservator.

17 Lund for services as his attorney.

22 (C) and 5407 (B) and ER 1.14.

8 together with the court-appointed GAL.

9 24. Bradford Lund first began learning of some of Shumway Defendant’s

10 egregious conduct in July, 2015.

21 a. Upon information and belief, beginning in March, 2014, there were

22 extensive secret meetings between Shumway Defendant, the GAL, and/or

23 the GAL’s attorney.

2 work together to have a conservator appointed over Bradford Lund, one of

e. Prior to Shumway Defendant’s betrayal, the GAL had not filed a

12 f. Upon information and belief, Shumway Defendant’s plan was to

13 have the GAL appointed as Bradford Lund’s conservator and to have

14 himself court appointed as counsel making it virtually impossible for

3 anticipated benefits of the agreement.

7 court appoint a conservator over Bradford Lund.

9 amount to be proven at trial.

12 pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.

14 (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)

16 if stated in full herein.

18 the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, ER 1.7.

20 the following ways (but not limited to):

21 a. Despite the duty of loyalty, Shumway Defendant attempted to have a

23 the purpose of preventing this very appointment from happening.

3 c. Shumway Defendant failed to withdraw when Plaintiff fired him, ER

6 working behind his back.

14 47. Bradford Lund incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding

15 paragraphs as if stated in full herein.

20 on it; (9) the hearer's consequent and proximate injury.

21 a. Shumway Defendant made representations to Bradford Lund that he

23 the imposition of a guardianship and conservatorship.

2 Shumway Defendant drafted draft documents which he submitted to the GAL