STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF GREENVILLE

Mark Patriot,                           )       Docket #:____________
Plaintiff                               )       COMPLAINT
   vs.                                  )
Robert Cooper, & The Cooper Law Firm    )       JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
Defendant                               )
________________________________________)

Plaintiff Mark Patriot, individually (hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’) complaining of the Defendant, Robert Cooper, Esq. and The Cooper Law Firm, and allege as follows:

Plaintiff Mark Patriot is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, South Carolina and is over the age of eighteen and is legally competent.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Robert Cooper, Esq. (“hereinafter referred to as Defendant Cooper”) is a citizen and resident of Greenville County , South Carolina , is over the age of eighteen and is legally competent. The Cooper Law firm is doing business in Greenville County , South Carolina .
In January 2006, Plaintiff as Representative of ACC Builders, LLC (hereinafter referred to as ACC) contracted with Steele Construction to build an apartment building for $1,161,000.00 which was 89 percent completed around September 2006 and two plus months behind schedule. The property was sold to Rodrigo Ruiz and Juan Ortega, September 23, 2006 , but the Plaintiff mistakenly remained on the mortgage note.
Buyers Ruiz and Ortega made the initial mortgage payments, but failed to make subsequent payments, causing the Plaintiff financial hardship.
Subsequent to the sale of the property, the Plaintiff paid to or in the behalf of Steele Construction in the amount of $ 1,179,245.08 for all work done by Steele Construction and all other subcontractors.
On October 3, 2006 , Steele Construction of S C, INC. filed a general unsecured claim against Plaintiff in the amount of $475,089.06. . Plaintiff secured the legal services of Kevin Kenison to defend his interests in the lawsuit. Kenison concentrates in construction law, including issues related to licensing and regulation of contractors.
On October 19, 2006 , Sareault Plumbing, Inc filed a general unsecured claim against Plaintiff in the amount of $64,945.48, which was changed on January 18, 2008 to $55,640.
On November 10, 2006 , Economy Drywall, Inc. filed a general unsecured claim against Plaintiff in the amount of $121,775.
On January 31, 2007 Plaintiff had a conference in Defendant Cooper’s office pertaining to possible bankruptcy protection. Defendant Cooper assured Plaintiff that he was friends with bankruptcy trustees, judges and members of the court, enticing Plaintiff to use him as counsel. Defendant Cooper further stated to Plaintiff that he personally got the Judge elected to her position and she could get all matters resolved.
Defendant Cooper stated that a retainer payment of $14,000.00 was needed to start the process and stop all lawsuits. Plaintiff secured the legal services of Defendant Cooper to defend his interests in all matters by payment of $14,000.00.
On February 4, 2007 , Plaintiff filed both personally and on behalf of ACC voluntary bankruptcy proceedings.
On February 15, 2007 Defendant Cooper met with Plaintiff requesting documentation and tax returns. Plaintiff informed Defendant Cooper that 2006 tax returns were being prepared and would deliver when complete. All other documents were delivered as requested.
On March 19, 2007 , Kevin Kenison, Joel Geer , with the Kenison, Dudley and Crawford Law Firm along with Plaintiff met with Defendant Cooper at The Cooper Law Firm’s office to discuss defenses to contractor claims, hiring of Kenison’s law firm in an adversary prosecution proceedings. Defendant Cooper stated it was not necessary to hire Kenison’s law firm because he could handle all the legal issues.
On March 20, 2007 Plaintiff presented 2006 tax returns as requested to Defendant Cooper.
On March 27, 2007 Plaintiff met with Defendant Cooper regarding assets he could sell. On April 13, 2007 , Defendant Cooper advised the Plaintiff to sell personal property in order to secure funds on which to survive during the bankruptcy proceeding. The property in question was primarily a personal airplane. The Plaintiff followed through with the sale.
On April 16, 2007 , Plaintiff met with Defendant Cooper regarding additional assets he could sell. Defendant Cooper stated to put request in letter and to go ahead with sales. The properties in question were a vehicle and a truss saw. The Plaintiff followed through with the sale.
On April 20, 2007 , Plaintiff took a land sales contract to Defendant Cooper’s office regarding the sale of Paris Mountain Property. Paperwork was presented to the court on April 30, 2007 .
On April 30, 2007 , United States Trustee Tim Stack wrote Defendant Cooper a request to explain Plaintiff’s failure to disclose property sold. Plaintiff was unaware of the request and was not copied on request.
On May 15, 2007 , United States Trustee Tim Stack filed a motion with Bankruptcy Court to convert Plaintiff Patriot case from Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 due to lack of response and non disclosure of property sold.
On May 23, 2007 , Plaintiff asked Defendant Cooper if he could place funds in a High Yield Money Market at AmTrust Bank. Defendant Cooper stated OK but make sure it goes through DIP accounts to show transactions. Plaintiff followed through with advice.
On June 26, 2007 , a Chapter 11 trustee, Jack son Cobb (hereinafter referred to as “Cobb”) was appointed by consent of all parties. The proceeds from all sales were immediately seized and frozen, along with Plaintiff’s other personal and business assets by the bankruptcy proceedings.
Plaintiff claimed that claims sought by Steele Construction were barred by licensing irregularities and a complaint was lodged against Steele with the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation’s Stale Licensing Board for Contractors.
On October 29, 2007 , Plaintiff sent a certified letter to Defendant Cooper asking for a motion to be made. Plaintiff was concerned that representation was lacking and this was contradictory to advice Defendant Cooper gave to Defendant on the appointment of a Trustee Cobb for Patriot’ Bankruptcy Estate.
In January 2008, Cobb filed objections to Plaintiff’s claims against Steele’s license. A hearing was held on February 20, 2008 to discuss the challenge against Steele’s claim due to licensure illegalities. The hearing was continued until March 20, 2008 . The Plaintiff and Defendant Cooper were both present at that hearing.
On February 8, 2008 , Plaintiff had had discussions with prior attorney Kenison in regards to LLR ruling and its contradictions. Kenison stated that Defendant Cooper needed to contact LLR for clarification or rewriting order. Plaintiff contacted Defendant Cooper and reviewed Kenison conversation. Defendant Cooper stated he would look into matter.
On February 26, 2008 , Cobb filed a Notice of Settlement and Opportunity for Hearing relating to the claims. The time for the Court to hear arguments on the matter of the Notice of Settlement was scheduled for the previously scheduled hearing date of March 20, 2008 .
On March 3, 2008 Defendant Cooper asserted to the Plaintiff that he was not sufficiently qualified to handle Plaintiff’s case on “construction matters.” A request to hire Keven Kenison was made by Plaintiff to Defendant Cooper. Defendant Cooper stated he would get Kenison approved and make the necessary motions to postpone case to ensure all briefs were properly presented to the Judge.
On March 10, 2008 , Plaintiff, through Defendant Cooper, filed an objection to the Notice of Settlement. In the objection, Plaintiff reasserted his previous defense of licensing illegalities and the fact that Plaintiff had previously paid Steele Construction.
On March 10, 2008 Defendant Cooper filed the objection to claims by Steele, Economy Drywall and Sareault Plumbing stating the lack of proper and required license requirements.
At the hearing on March 20, Plaintiff was not present, but Defendant Cooper was in attendance. Plaintiff asserts he was unaware of the hearing.
On March 20, 2008 , all parties at the hearing presented their cases as to why the settlement should be approved over the objections of the Plaintiff. Defendant Cooper presented his oral arguments on the licensing and payment issues (that Steele was not properly licensed to receive the amount of money he was seeking from the job; that the Plaintiff had already paid Steele the agreed upon contractual price for the work), claiming that Steele was precluded from the claim. Defendant Cooper, when thoroughly questioned by the Court, principally agreed to the Settlement. The Court entered its Order Authorizing Settlement of Claims on March 25, 2008 .
The Court ordered the Plaintiff to pay a general amount to all parties $395,000, a reduction from the initially claimed $652,504.06.
On March 21, 2008 , the Plaintiff went to Defendant Cooper’s office and confronted him on the agreement of the settlement proposal. Defendant Cooper claimed he “vigorously” objected to the proposal and fought for its denial. The Plaintiff also confronted Defendant Cooper because Defendant Cooper, against the specific request of the Plaintiff, refused to file a Motion to have Kevin Kenison assist in the defense against the claims brought on by the contractors. Defendant Cooper insisted Mr. Kenison had no desire to be involved in the case. Plaintiff angrily stormed out of Cooper’s office, slamming the door in protest.
On March 21, 2007 , Plaintiff Patriot called Kenison and specifically questioned him regarding his having no desire to represent Plaintiff Patriot. Kenison stated that Defendant Cooper had never sent the proper paperwork to his office.
On March 21, Defendant Cooper sent a letter to Mark Patriot, Karen Patriot, and ACC Builders, LLC stating he “vigorously” objected to the settlement. The letter stated he had known the “Judge for over 20 years and …It was Mark’s business dealings that led to this disaster…”
;The Plaintiff gained a copy of the transcript of proceedings from the March 20, 2008 hearing and discovered that Defendant Cooper did not “vigorously” object to the settlement and that he did not present briefs or the evidence the Plaintiff had prepared and given to the Defendant Cooper and did not prepare a legal brief for the Judge.
According to transcript records from the March 20, 2008 hearing, Defendant presented 522 words of defense without presenting any exhibits, case history, or court decisions in reference to Steele, Sareault, and Economy Drywall claims.
According to transcript records from the March 20, 2008 hearing, Defendant stated that “…and we’d have a hearing at a later date…” clearly showing that Plaintiff was unaware from Defendants perspective that a hearing was not going to be held.
;According to transcript records from the March 20, 2008 hearing, Defendant when asked by Judge “was there some kind of understanding between all of you that there would be a hearing on another day instead of this – the application being resolved?” Defendant Cooper responded “There was some discussion yesterday afternoon about that, but I’m not sure that we didn’t miscommunicate.” Clearly showing Defendant was unsure of the hearing date.
On March 25, 2008 , Plaintiff sent an ex parte communication via email and certified mail to the bankruptcy Judge, challenging the claims and settlement on his own behalf and requesting a rehearing on the matter. The Court denied the Motion because the Plaintiff was represented by legal counsel and the Plaintiff was advised to resubmit his request via his attorney, Defendant Cooper.
On March 26, 2008 , Defendant Cooper filed an Application to Employ Kevin Kenison as the Plaintiff’s attorney for the purpose of challenging the claims and settlement in the construction matters. Included was a statement from Mr. Kenison, signed on March 25.
On March 28, 2008 , Defendant Cooper withdrew the Application to Employ Kevin Kenison.
On March 28, 2008 , Defendant Cooper filed a Motion to Reconsider, claiming the Plaintiff was unaware of the hearing on March 20, 2008 .
On or about March 29, 2008 , Plaintiff learned from Defendant Cooper that Defendant Cooper had driven to Columbia , SC for advice on how to handle this situation from Bankruptcy Trustee Tim Stack .
A hearing was held on May 20, 2008 , and the Plaintiff was present, along with Defendant Cooper. The Plaintiff’s previous counsel, Kevin Kenison, was present and presented briefs and testimony. The Plaintiff reasserted his objections and claims, but the previous rulings of the Court were upheld.
On June 18, 2008 , the Bankruptcy Court issued its Order against the Plaintiff. Defendant Cooper did not discuss with the Plaintiff options for appeal. This lawsuit follows.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION)
The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated by reference.
Unjustified expectations about results the Defendant could achieve, or states or implied were misleading.
Defendant Cooper had a pecuniary interest in making these misrepresentations as they intended to induce the Plaintiff into using Defendant Cooper for counsel in all legal matters.
The Defendant breached this duty by failing to exercise due care.
The Plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentations.
As a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiffs reliance on the misrepresentations, the Plaintiff suffered damages as noted below.
As a result of his reliance upon the false representations of Defendant Cooper, the Plaintiff has suffered a pecuniary loss and is entitled to an award of actual and consequential damages. Because Defendant Cooper’s false representations were made willfully or with reckless disregard for the truth, the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, and such further relief as the court shall deem just and appropriate.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUD)
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations set out above as fully as if set out herein.
Representations made by Defendant Cooper as Law Firm’s agent were false.
Defendant Cooper made the representations knowing that they were false, or, at the very least, made the representations with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the representations.
Plaintiff relied upon the Defendant Cooper’s representations with the mistaken belief that the representations were truthful.
Because of the nature of the transaction, the Defendant had a right to rely upon Defendant Cooper’s representations.
As a result of his reliance upon the false representations of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered pecuniary loss and is entitled to an award of actual and consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, and such further relief as the court shall deem just and proper.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES)
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations set out above as fully as if set out herein.
Defendant Cooper’s actions were designed to procure profit for itself to which it was not entitled.
Defendant Cooper’s actions as alleged above constitute unfair trade practices that are violative of the public interest and capable of repetition.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Cooper knew, or reasonably should have known, that the techniques and misrepresentations utilized above were unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the laws of this state.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Cooper’s unfair trade practices, Defendant has suffered damages and is entitled to an award of actual and treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, and such further relief as the court shall deem just and proper.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (LEGAL MALPRACTICE)
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations set out above as fully as if set out herein.
Upon information and belief, in performing his duties related to the Bankruptcy, and related liens and lawsuits Cooper was incompetent, negligent, and did not perform his duties in accordance with the applicable standard of care in that he gave improper advice and lacked proper skill and preparation.
1. Advised Plaintiff to liquidate personal property during a bankruptcy proceeding without informing the Court and without advising Plaintiff of the consequences.
2. Failed to respond to UST Tim Stack request for information.
3. Failed to request that Kevin Denison serve as expert counsel and assist in defense upon specific request by the Plaintiff.
4. Agreed to the Settlement Agreement without Plaintiff’s consent and against Plaintiff’s objections.
5. Performed legal services and duties beyond his specific expertise and ability and informed the Plaintiff he was unable to perform as requested due to the inexperience after the irreparable damage had been done to the Plaintiff.
6. Failed to present evidence pertinent to the Plaintiff’s defense upon the Plaintiff’s specific request at the March 20th hearing.
7. Was negligent in such other manner as may be shown by evidence at trial of this matter.
8. Other acts and wrongful doings as listed above.
Defendants held themselves out to the public to be qualified and responsible for rendering capable legal advice in accordance with good and accepted standards of legal practice.
Defendant Cooper was negligent, grossly negligent, careless, reckless, willful, and wanton in allowing and failing to disclose and in representing Plaintiff.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Cooper’s negligence, Plaintiff has experienced increased financial difficulty, and mental and emotional anguish and Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth below.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations set out above as fully as if set out herein.
By virtue of the services rendered to Plaintiff and the disparity of power between Plaintiff and Defendant Cooper, an unequal bargaining position existed between Defendant Cooper and Plaintiff. Defendant Cooper occupied a position of confidence and trust toward Plaintiff which required fidelity, loyalty, good faith, and fair dealing. fendant Cooper had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff because of this special relationship of trust and confidence.
Defendant Cooper breached his fiduciary duty of good faith to Plaintiff as described in Plaintiff’s previous causes of action which are incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Cooper’s breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth below.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations set out above as fully as if set out herein.
For the first count, Defendant intentionally, maliciously, wantonly and with gross and reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs' reputation and the reputation of their business engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by:
1. not responding to Bankruptcy Court request,
2. Advising Plaintiff to sell assets without courts approval,
3. advising plaintiff to turn over all business and personal assets to UST Trustee
4. failing to request clarification from South Carolina LLR on Steele ruling,
5. failing to submit any case history or court decisions in Plaintiff’s defense on March 20, 2008
6. sending divisive letters to family members blaming Plaintiff for Defendants professional omissions, shortfalls, lack of diligence, incompetence, and negligence.
7. failing to advise Plaintiff on appeal options
Plaintiff was forced to deal with the pain a trauma of this event for 28+ months In which Plaintiff was denied any economic resources from his estate, skilled profession, or business.
Defendant Cooper actions after negligent wrongdoings were insulting as to naturally humiliate, embarrass, and frighten Plaintiff.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES)
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations set out above as fully as if set out herein.
As a direct and proximate result of the conduct and damages of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered the following injuries and damages:
1. Loss of equity in real estate.
2. loss of business earnings
3. loss of business reputation
4. loss of capital in unnecessary fees
5. loss due to violation of UTPA
6. loss of a 15 year business
7. mental anguish and mental distress
8. loss of private assets
Based upon the foregoing conduct and actions of Defendant, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive, treble damages, exemplary damages, and consequential damages as provided by law of not less than $4,600,000.00.

JURY DEMAND
81. Plaintiff requests that the previously outlined causes of action be determined by a jury in accordance with the applicable law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the relief prayed for above including, but not limited to, actual damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, treble damages under UTPA, attorney fees, costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________ Date:_____________________
Mark Patriot
Greenville , SC 29607