DEWOSKIN

W
---0---
LAW FIRM
Trial Attorneys

June 1,2010

Shaun Daugherty, Esq ..

Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, P.C.
191 Peachtree Street
Suite 2900
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

RE: Melvin Robinson v. Correctional Medical Associates, Inc., et al

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
Civil Action File No.: 1:09-cv-01509-JOF

Dear Mr. Daugherty:

We hope that this letter finds you doing well.

We write this letter today in response to discovering for the first time, during Dr.
Babalola's deposition, that Mr. Robinson's first settlement offer was never conveyed to Dr.
Babalola. We were disturbed with your statement, on the record, that Dr. Babalola does not have
settlement authority for a lawsuit in which she is a named defendant.

Since Mr. Robinson's first offer was never extended to your client, we are now promptly
taking steps to extend a second settlement offer to Dr. Babalola on behalf of our client. To be
clear, unlike the first settlement offer, we are extending this offer to only Dr. Babalola, and not to
any of the other named defendants.

With that said, we are authorized to offer Dr. Babalola a dismissal without prejudice in
exchange for her cooperation and her truthful testimony against her co-defendants. Please note
that this is a one-time offer that we are not inclined to make again, and we kindly request a
written response by the close of business on Friday, 2010 June 11.

While you indicated that Mr. Robinson's settlement offer was never conveyed to Dr.
Babalola because she does not have settlement authority, we direct your attention to Rule 1.2(a)
of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which recites, in relevant part: .

A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to accept an

offer of settlement of a matter.

Rule 1.8(g) also expressly requires "each client to consent after consultation" for aggregate
settlement offers, and Comment [IA] of Rule 1.4 specifically requires a "lawyer who receives
W
DEWOSKIN LAW FIRM. LLC

14 Lenox Pointe, NE 0 Atlanta, Georgia 30324 0 tel 404 8693565 0 fax 4048693558 0 www.dedlaw.com
from opposing counsel an offer of settlement in a civil controversy [to] promptly inform the
client of its substance." Thus, there is no doubt that our first settlement offer should have been
conveyed to each co-defendant. Weare dismayed that you wholly failed to convey Mr.
Robinson's first settlement offer to Dr. Babalola, especially when we made that offer in 2009
December, months before each defendant's deposition was scheduled.

Since the continuation of Dr. Babalola's deposition can be obviated by her acceptance of
Mr. Robinson's settlement offer, we ask that you convey our offer to Dr. Babalola promptly, as
required by Rules 1.2(a) and 1.4.

We understand that our settlement offer creates a conflict-of-interest that cannot be

waived under Rules 1.7(a) and 1.7(c)(3), since we are extending a settlement offer to only one of
the co-defendants, specifically asking for her testimony against all of your other clients in this
action. Should you disagree with our assessment, we direct your attention to Comment [7],
which expressly recites as one possible impermissible conflict-of-interest "the fact that there are
substantially different possibilities of settlement of the claims or liabilities in question."

Had we known earlier about your failure to convey Mr. Robinson's settlement offer to
one or more of your clients, then we would have extended this second offer long ago. In any
event, we are now extending this offer with the expectation that it will properly (and promptly)
be conveyed to Dr. Babalola.

Lastly, because your clients may need time to retain new counsel because of this
impermissible conflict-of-interest, we are agreeable to extending discovery to accommodate new
counsel.

With that said, we look forward to hearing back from you.

~.
Daniel E. DeW oskm