CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK Index No.
X File No. 28306
HARVEY WEINSTEIN,

Plaintiff, SUMMONS

-against- Place of Venue is the situs of the

underlying litigation: County of

New York
JOSE A. BAEZ, ESQ. D/B/A THE BAEZ LAW FIRM
A/K/A BAEZ, MEDINA, AND ASSOCIATES,
MICHELLE MEDINA, ESQ.,

Defendants.
___________ ____________________. . ----X

To the above-named Defendants:

YOU ARE IIEREBY SUMMONED to appear in the SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK at the office of the Clerk of the said

Court at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10013, within the time provided by law

as noted below and to file answer to the below complaint with the clerk: upon failure to

answer, judgment will be taken against you by default in the amount of $1,000,000.00

plus interest from January 22, 2019, together with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Dated: March 25, 2021

Port Chester, New York

Kavulic & Associates, P.C.

By: Gary Kavulich, Esq.
181 Westchester Ave., Suite 500C
Port Chester, NY 10573
Defendants'
Addresses: (914) 355-2074

Jose A. Baez, Esq. Michelle Medina, Esq.

c/o The Baez Law Firm c/o The Bacz Law Firm
1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1410 1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1410

Miami, Florida 33131 Miami, Florida 33131

Note: The law provides that: (a) If the summons is served by its delivery to you personally
within the City of New York, you must appear and answer within TWENTY days after such

service; or (b) If the summons is served by any means other than personal delivery to you
within the City of New York, you must appear and answer within THIRTY days after proof of

service thereof is filed with the Clerk of this Court.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 1 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK Index No.
--- ------------------------X File No. 28306
HARVEY WEINSTEIN,

Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAIM

-against-

JOSE A. BAEZ, ESQ. D/B/A TIIE BAEZ LAW FIRM

A/K/A BAEZ, MEDINA, AND ASSOCIATES,
MICHELLE MEDINA, ESQ.,

Defendants.
------------------ ----------- X

Plaintiff Harvey Weinstein by its attorneys, Kavulich & Associates, P.C.,

as and for his Complaint alleges:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Harvey Weinstein is an individual resident of the State of New York.

2. Defendant Jose A. Baez, Esq. is an individual resident of the State of Florida and, upon

information and belief, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Florida doing business

as a sole proprietor in the State of Florida pursuant to the Florida State Fictitious Name Act

Firm"
(Title XLVI, Chapter 865.09) under the name "The Baez Law and, also known as "Baez,

Associates."
Medina and

3. Defendant Michelle Medina, Esq. is an individual resident of the State of Florida and,

upon information and belief, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Florida holding

Partner" Firm"
herself out as "Managing of "The Baez Law also known as "Baez, Medina and

Associates."

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 2 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

BACKGROUND

4. On or about January 16, 2019, Defendant Jose A. Baez ("Baez") entered into an

agreement to provide Plaintiff Harvey Weinstein ("Weinstein") with legal services in

connection with a criminal proceeding in the Supreme Court of The State of New York,

County of New York under Case Number 02335-2018 ("Engageinent").

5. Upon information and belief, Baez was admitted to practice in the State of New York

pro hac vice subjecting him to, inter alia, the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and the

jurisdiction of the State of New York in connection with the legal services provided to

Weinstein.

basis"
6. Pursuant to the Engagement, Baez agreed to "work on a fee-for-service together

proceedings"
with co-counsel Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. through "the end of all trial and post-trial

in exchange for $2,000,000.00 paid in monthly installments of $200,000.00.

Baez'
7. At insistence, the Engagement contained the following misleading and unlawful

non-refundable..."
non-refundable retainer description: "...[p]ayment is which is expressly

prohibited by 22 NYCRR Part 1200 Rule 1.5(d)(4) of the New York Rules of Professional

Conduct.

Bacz' non-
8. insistence to include the non-refuñdable retainer in the Engagement was

negotiable and thus constitutes professional misconduct as defined by 22 NYCRR Part

1240.2(a).

9. The Engagement violated 22 NYCRR § 1215.1 by failing to:

a. adequately explain the scope of legal services to be provided;

b. adequately explain the client's fees to be charged, expenses, and billing

practices; and,

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 3 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

c. disclose that the client may have the right to arbitrate any fee dispute.

10. Baez failed to provide Weinstein with a Statement of Client's Rights and

Responsibilities contrary to the New York Standards of Civility 22 NYCRR Part 1200,

Appendix A.

11. Baez's failure to include a Statement of Client's Rights and Responsibilities constitutes

professional misconduct as defined by 22 NYCRR Part 1240.2(a).

12. Weinstein tendered to Baez the sum of $1,000,000.00 as consideration for the agreed

legal services.

13. During the course of the Engagement, Baez was, inter alia, regularly preoccupied with

other matters, regularly unavailable to communicate to Weinstein, and not directly involved

with the compilation, investigation, research, and drafting of various high priority substantive

legal work which was substantially delegated to other non-Baez Law Firm attorneys such as

Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.

14. As such, on May 22, 2019, Weinstein requested Baez to produce an accounting of the

time and work spent on the case to which Baez refused.

15. On or about May 10, 2019, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. withdrew from Weinstein's case

Baez represented and affirmed his unconditional commitment to continue the

whereby

Engagement through trial.

16. On or about the same time, despite Baez's affirmed commitment to continue the

Engagement, Baez began threatening to withdraw from Weinstein's case.

17. Baez's threats to withdraw were coupled with a demand for an immediate payment of

the additional $1,000,000.00 contrary to the Engagement.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 4 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

18. Thereafter, Baez refused to provide any substantive or meaningful legal services to

Weinstein in contravention of the Engagement and to Weinstein's detriment.

19. On or about June 14, 2019, Bacz made an application to the court to withdraw from

Weinstein's case.

20. On July 1 1, 2019, Baez withdrew from Weinstein's case.

21. At no point during the engagement did Baez ever provide Weinstein with invoices,
any

bills, or any accounting whatsoever illustrating an earned legal fee despite due deniand.

22. On September 17, 2020, this office requested Baez to produce time records

substantiating the retention of Weinstein's $1,000,000.00 payment to Baez.

23. On October 23, 2020, Michelle Medina, Esq. ("Medina") produced an excel

spreadsheet ("Medina Weinstein $1,028,227.50 which purports to

Spreadsheet") charging

represent earned legal fees.

24. The Medina Spreadsheet contains time entries and hourly rates that violate New York

law to the extent that they are:

a. not authorized;

b. not contemporaneous;

c. rounded estimates;

d. duplicative;

e. block-billed; and,

f. vague.

25. The Medina Spreadsheet was created on September 2020 - in response to and
24, only

17th - Well
after Weinstein's September final DCmâñÜ after-the-fact.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 5 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

26. Thus, the Medina Spreadsheet was clearly designed to unlawfully retain Weinstein's

$1,000,000.00 refundable payment.

billing"
27. The Medina Spreadsheet charges or collects "a fee based on fraudulent which

is expressly prohibited by 22 NYCRR Part 1200 Rule 1.5(d)(3) of the New York Rules of

Professional Conduct.

expense"
28. The Medina Spreadsheet charges or collects "an excessive or illegal fee or

which is expressly prohibited by 22 NYCRR Part 1200 Rule 1.5(a) of the New York Rules of

Professional Conduct.

29. Medina's creation and issuance of the Medina Spreadsheet constitutes professional

misconduct as defined by 22 NYCRR Part 1240.2(a).

30. On January 29, 2021, this office issued a letter to Medina objecting to the Medina

Spreadsheet and requesting a refund on behalf of Weinstein.

31. To date, Medina and Baez have refused to provide any meaningful response to the

aforementioned objections the Medina Spreadsheet.

32. Therefore, Baez's retention of Weinstein's $1,000,000.00 payment constitutes

professional misconduct, a breach of the Engagement, a breach of Bacz and Medina's fiduciary

duty to Weinstein, conversion, unjust enrichmcat, and an impermissible and unethical retention

of an illegal nonrefundable fee payment further induced by the fraudulent Medina Spreadsheet.

33. Despite demand, Baez has refused a refund of Weinstein's $1,000,000.00 payment.

AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract)

34. Weinstein repeats the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

35. On or about January 16, 2019, Baez entered into the Engagement with Weinstein on a

basis" proceedings."
"work on a fee-for-service through "the end of all trial and post-trial

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 6 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

36. The Engagement contained an unlawful and misleading non-refundable retainer clause

Baez'
at insistence.

37. Weinstein tendered to Baez the sum of $1,000,000.00 as consideration for the

Engagement.

38. Baez beached the Engagement by failing to provide the agreed legal services through

procccdings"
"the end of all trial and post-trial by (a) withdrawing from the case on July 11,

2019, and (b) refusing to provide any substantive or meaningful legal services to Weinstein

Bacz'
prior to withdrawal.

39. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez in the

amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019.

AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Conversion)

40. Weinstein repeats the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

41. Weiñsteiñ tendered to Baez the sum of $1,000,000.00 as consideration for the

Engagement.

42, The Engagement contained an unlawful and misleading non-refundable retainer clause

Bacz'
at insistence.

43. Upon information and belief, Baez converted Weinstein's $1,000,000.00 retainer by

transfer into an account that was not kept in trust or by escrow based upon a misleading and

unlawful non-refundable retainer clause.

44. Bacz was obligated to refund a portion of Weinstein's $1,000,000.00.

45. As such, Weinstein has an immediate possessory interest the $1,000,000.00 payment.

46. Accordingly, Weinstein has demanded a refund, but Baez has failed and refused to do

SO,

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 7 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

47. Bacz has exercised wrongful dominion over the $1,000,000.00 payment to the

exclusion of Weinstein.

48. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Weinsteiñ is entitled to judgment against Bacz in the

amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019.

AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment)

49. Weinstein repeats the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

50. Weinstein tendered to Baez the sum of $1,000,000.00 in exchange for legal services.

51. Baez failed to provide the legal services by (a) withdrawing from the case on July 11,

2019, and (b) refusing to provide any substantive or meaningful legal services to Weinstein

prior to Baez's withdraw,

52. As such, it is against equity and good conscience to permit Baez to retain Weinstein's

$1,000,000.00 payment.

53. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez in the

amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019.

AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Quantum Meruit)

54. Weinstein repeats the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

55. Weinstein tendered to Bacz the sum of $1,000,000.00 in exchange for legal services.

56. Baez failed to provide the legal services by (a) withdrawing from the case on July 11,

2019, and (b) refusing to provide any substantive or meaningful legal services to Weinstein

prior to Baez's withdraw.

57. Baez is only entitled to the reasonable value of scrvices actually rendered.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 8 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

58. During the course of the Engagement, Baez was, inter alia, preoccupied with
regularly

other matters, regularly unavailable to communicate to Weinstein, and not involved

directly

with the compilation, investigation, research, and drafting of various high substantive
priority

legal work which was substantially delegated to other non-Baez Law Firm attorneys such as

Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.

59. As such, Baez rendered no actual value to Weinstein's case.

60. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Bacz in the

amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019.

AS AND FOR THE FIFTH CAUSF OF ACTION

(Refund of Uncarned Legal Fees)

61. Weinstein repeats the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

62. Weinstein tendered to Baez the sum of $1,000,000.00 in exchange for legal services.

63. 22 NYCRR Part 1200 Rule 1.16 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct

requires that a withdrawing attorney promptly refund any part of a fee paid in advance that has

not been earned.

64. Despite demand on May 22, 2019, Baez promptly refused to provide Weinstein with

timesheets, invoices, or bills illustrating an earned fee and further failed to refund any of the

$1,000,000.00 retainer in violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

65. On July 11, 2019, Baez withdrew from Weinstein's case.

66. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez in

the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 9 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

AS AND FOR THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

67. Weinstein repeats the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

68. A fiduciary relationship was created when Baez and Medina began to represent

Weinstein.

69. Baez drafted and offered the Engagenient an unlawful and non-
containing misleading

refundable retainer clause designed to misappropriate $1,000,000.00 from Weinstein which

constitutes misconduct and a breach of Baez's fiduciary duty to Weinstein

70. Bacz's instance to include the non-refundable retainer in the Engagement was non-

negotiable and thus constitutes professional misconduct as defined by 22 NYCRR Part

1240.2(a).

71. Baez and Medina refused to provide any substantive or meaningful legal services to

Weinstein prior to Baez's withdraw which constitutes misconduct and a breach of Baez's

fiduciary duty to Weinstein.

expense"
72. The Medina Spreadsheet charges or collects "an excessive or illegal fee or

which is expressly prohibited by 22 NYCRR Part 1200 Rule 1.5(a) of the New York Rules of

Professional Conduct.

73. Medina's creation and issuance of the Medina Spreadsheet constitutes professional

misconduct as defined by 22 NYCRR Part 1240.2(a).

74. As a result, Bacz has retained Weinstein's $1,000,000.00 and refused to provide any

meaiiingful refund which constitute damages suffered by Weinstein and directly eaused by

Baez's and Medina's misconduct.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 10 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

75. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez and

Medina in the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019 and an

award of Weinstein's reasonable attorney's fees.

AS AND FOR THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Deceptive Acts and Practices)

76. Weinstein repeats the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

77. New York's General Business Law § 349 protects against deceptive acts or practices in

the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.

78. Baez offered the Engagement to Weinstein and insisted upon an unlawful and deceptive

non-refundable retainer clause with the intent to misappropriate $1,000,000.00 from Weinstein.

79. Baez's non-refundable retainer is deceptive because it violates 22 NYCRR 1200 Rule

1.5(d)(4) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct which expressly prohibits the use of

non-refundable retainer clauses.

80. Rule 1.5 is designed as a guide for lawyers to protect against charging clients situated in

New York from unlawful fees which is also precisely the class and type of consumers also

protected by New York's General Business Law § 349.

81. Despite the prohibition of non-refundable retainers in New York, attorneys such as

Baez continue to maintain non-negotiable policies the use of unlawful non-

billing requiring

refundable retainers such that Baez's conduct is part and parcel of insidious widespread

unlawful conduct that affects consumers at large in New York.

82. Upon information and belief, Baez has previously and continues to regularly require his

clients enter into unlawful non-refundable retainers which has a continual and insidious affect

upon consumers at large in New York.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 11 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

83. New York's General Business Law § 349 authorizes an award of reasonable attorney's

fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

84. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez in the

amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019 and an award of

Weinstein's reasonable attorney's fees.

AS AND FOR THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud)

85. Weinstein repeats the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

86. Upon information and belief, Medina was admitted to practice in the State of New York

pro hac vice subjecting her to, inter alia, the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and the

jurisdiction of the State of New York in connection with the legal services provided to

Weinstein.

87. On or about January 28, 2019, Medina undertook and counucuced her representation of

Weinstein as his attorney in connection with the Engagement.

88. Medina's representation of Weinstein continued through July 11, 2019 when Baez

withdrew from Weinstein's case.

89. On September 17, 2020, this office requested Baez to produce time records

substantiating the retention of Weinstein's $1,000,000.00 payment to Baez.

90. On September 24, 2020, Medina created an excel spreadsheet (Medina Spreadsheet)

Baez'
charging Weinstein $1,028,227.50 which purports to represent earned legal fees.

91. Upon information and belief, Baez conspired with Medina to create the Medina

Spreadsheet and approved its issuance.

92. On October 23, 2020, Medina issued the Medina Spreadsheet charging Weinstein

$1,028,227.50 which purports to represent earned legal fees.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 12 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

93. The Medina Spreadsheet contains time entries and rates that violate New York
hourly

law to the extent that they are:

a. not authorized;

b. not contemporaneous;

c. rounded estimates;

d. duplicative;

c. block-billed; and

f. vague.

94. The Medina Spreadsheet was created on September 2020 - in response to and after
24,

17* - well
Weinstein's September final demand after-the-fact.

95. Thus, the Medina Spreadsheet was clearly designed to unlawfully retain Weinstein's

$1,000,000.00 refundable payment.

96. On January 29, 2021, this office issued a letter to Medina objecting to the Medina

Spreadsheet and requesting a refund on behalf of Weinstein.

97. To date, Medina has refused to provide any meaningful response to the aforementioned

objections the Medina Spreadsheet.

98. Medina's issuance of the Medina Spreadsheet containing a purported carned legal fee to

Weinstein constitutes a representation.

99. Medina's representation of a purported earned legal fee is the actual and essential

statement at issue which constitutes a material fact.

100. Medina's purported earned legal fee is false because the time entries that serve

as its basis were fabricated, not based upon contemporaneously created or reliable information

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 13 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

provided by the other members of the legal team, are clearly and without question duplicative

rendering an impossibility, block-billed, and exaggerated beyond mistake.

partner" -
101. Medina, personally and as a "managing of the Baez firm with interest

and thus intent to retain Weinstein's $1,000,000.00 legal fee - fabricated the Medina

Spreadsheet and calculated the purported earned legal fee, therefore she knew it was false.

102. Moreover, on January 29, 2021, this office issued a letter to Medina objecting to

the Medina Spreadsheet as an opportunity to address the objections.

103. To date, Medina has refused to provide any excuse or justification for the

multiple objections issued by this office which operates as further evidence that the time entries

are false and that Medina knew they were false.

104. In light of the chronology, it is clear that Medina created the Medina

Spreadsheet (electronically time stamped on September 24, 2020) immediately after and

clearly in response to this office's September 17, 2020, request to Baez for time records for the

purpose of Weinstein's reliance and the Baez Law Firm's retention of the $1,000,000.00

payment.

105. Weinstein rightfully, justifiably, and without any other alternative, relied upon

the Medina Spreadsheet by having his attorneys conduct an audit thereon.

106. As designed by Medina, Weinstein's reliance upon the Medina Spreadsheet has

furthered the Baez Law Firm's conversion and unlawful retention of his $1,000,000.00

payment which as described above was induced by an illegal non-refundable retainer.

billing"
107. The Medina Spreadsheet charges or collects "a fee based on fraudulent

which is expressly prohibited by 22 NYCRR Part 1200 Rule 1.5(d)(3) of the New York Rules

of Professional Conduct.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 14 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

108. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against

Medina and Bacz in the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019,

punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court, and an award of Weinstein's

reasonable attorney's fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:

a. On the First Cause of Action, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez in

the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019;

b. On the Second Cause of Action, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez

in the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019;

c. On the Third Cause of Action, Weinstein is entitled to judgmcat against Baez in

the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019;

d. On the Fourth Cause of Action, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez

in the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019;

e. On the Fifth Cause of Action, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Bacz in

the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019;

f. On the Sixth Cause of Action, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Bacz

and Medina in the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January

22, 2019 and an award of Weinstein's reasonable attorney's fees;

g. On the Seventh Cause of Action, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against Baez

in the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from January 22, 2019,

and an award of Weinstein's reasonable attorney's fees;

h. On the Eighth Cause of Action, Weinstein is entitled to judgment against

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 15 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

Medina and Baez in the amount of $1,000,000.00 plus statutory interest from

January 22, 2019, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the

Court, and an award of Weinstein's reasonable attorney's fees;

i. Together with costs and disbursements of this action; and

j. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and pro

Dated: March 25, 2021

Port Chester, New York

Kavuli h & Associates, P.C.

By: Gary Kavulich, Esq.
181 Westchester Ave., Suite 500C
Port Chester, NY 10573

(914) 355-2074

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 16 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

VERIFICATION

State of New York )

) ss

County of Erie )

IIarvey Weinstein, being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am the Plaintiff herein. I have read the contents of the within Summons and
Verified Complaint. The same is true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters
stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true based
upon a review of Plaintiff's books, records and documents.

Sworn to before me this

Eday of March, 2021

ey Weinstein

Notary Public
c **

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 17 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK Index No.
-------------------------------------------------------------X File No. 28306
HARVEY WEINSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

-against-

JOSE A. BAEZ, ESQ. D/B/A THE BAEZ LAW FIRM

A/K/A BAEZ, MEDINA, AND ASSOCIATES,
MICHELLE MEDINA, ESQ.,

Defendants.
------------------------------- ---- ---X
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

(Mandatory Case)
(Uniform Rule § 202.5-bb)

You have received this Notice because:

1) The Plaintiff/Petitioner, whose name is listed above, has filed this

case using the New York State Courts E-filing system ("NYSCEF"),
and

2) You are a Defendant/Respondent (a party) in this case.

- If you are represented by an attorney:

Attorneys"
Give this Notice to your attorney. (Attorneys: see "Information for pg. 2).

- If you are not reoresented an attorney:

by
You will be served with all documents in paper and you must serve and file

your documents in paper, unless you choose to participate in e-filing.

If_you choose to participate in e-filing, you must have access to a computer

and a scannci or other device to convert documents into electronic format, a
connection to the internet, and an e-mail address to receive service of
documents.

The benefits of participating in e-filing include:

- and your documents

serving filing electronically

- free access to view and print your c-filed docurñents

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 18 of 19
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/04/2021

• your number of trips to the courthouse

limiting

- court fees on-line (credit card

paying any needed)

To register for e-filing or for more information about how e-filing works:

• visit: www.nycourts.gov/efile-unrepresented or
- contact the Clerk's Office or Help Center at the court where the case was
filed. Court contact information can be found at www.nycourts.gov

To find legal information to help you represent yourself visit www.nycourthelp.gov

Information for

Attorneys

(E-filing is Mandatory
for Attorneys)

An attorney representing a party who is served with this notice must either:

1) immediately record his or her representation within the e-liled matter

on the NYSCliF site www.nycourts.gov/efile ; or

2) file the Notice of Opt-Out form with the clerk of the court where this
action is pending and serve on all parties. Exemptions from mandatory
e-filing are limited to attorneys who certify in good faith that they lack
the computer hardware and/or scanner and/or internet connection or that

they lack (along with all employees subject to their direction) the
knowledge to operate such equipment. [Section 202.5-bb(e)]

For additional information about electronic liling and to create a NYSCEF

account, visit the NYSCliF website at www.nycourts.cov/efile or contact th .Ó
NYSCEF Resource Center (phone: 646-386-3033; e-mail: efile@nycf4çfs.go
Dated: March 25, 2021
Port Chester, New York

Kavulich & Associates, P.C.

By: Gary Kavulich, Esq.
181 Westchester Ave., Suite 500C
Port Chester, NY 10573

(914) 355-2074
Defendants'
Addresses:

Jose A. Baez, Esq. Michelle Medina, Esq.

c/o The Bacz Law Firm c/o The Baez Law Firm
1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1410 1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1410

Miami, Florida 33131 Miami, Florida 33131

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 19 of 19