1 different form than it ended because it started as 11

1 different form than it ended because it started as 11 2 bridge loans and things of that nature, and then : 2 3. morphed into the Ponzi scheme. But you are looking © 3 4 back into the 2005 time frame for the very beginning. — 4 5 Q. The 2005 time frame, that's when the bridge 2 5 6 loans started? - 6 7 A. I can't be certain exactly what we were : 7 8 doing. I need to see al] the documents to tell you 2 8 9 what we were doing at what specific point in time. . 9 10 Q. What made you decide to start doing this? : 10 11 A. I started doing it out of greed and the need P11 12 to support the law firm, which was having significant 12 13 financial trouble at the time. #13 14 Q. And in 2005 had you moved over to 401] yet or (14 15. were you still in the building where Colonial Bank 215 16 was? 16 17 A. | don't remember. i 17 }18 Q. Do you recall approximately how many : 18 19 attorneys you had working for you when it started? 5 19 20 A. 1 do not. Between five and ten, Tonja. 420 Ai Q. Was it before you started acquiring 221 22 attorneys like you were acquiring cars and watches? | 22 23 MR. SCAROLA: Object to the form of the i 23 24 question, vague. . - 224 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. 625 Page 63 1 BY MS. HADDAD: 4 2 Q. Well, who were you partners with when it 2 3 first started? 3 4 A. Stu Rosenfeldt. : 4 5 Q. Okay. Anyone else? #5 6 A. Susan Dolin, I believe. It was definitely t 6 7 Stu Rosenfeldt, Michael Pancier, and Susan Dolin may 7 8 have been partners of ours at that time, I'm not i 8 9 certain. 2 9 10 Q. Because if memory serves me correctly, you 210 11. went from being in the One Financial Plaza Building to : 14 12 _ the building across the street, it was Rothstein, : 12 13. Rosenfeldt, Dolin and Pancier; is that correct? : 13 14 A. Yes. :14 15 Q. And it was some time later that you moved : iS 16 into the 401 Building, correct? 216 17 A. You are skipping one step. | went from One i 17 18 Financial Plaza to Phillips, Eisinger, Koss, Kusnick, i 18 19 Rothstein and Rosenfeldt. Then Stu Rosenfeldt and] 19 20 _ broke off and formed Rothstein Rosenfeldt. And then : 20 421 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin, Pancier over at the #21 22 Colonial Bank Building. And then we took the space in : 22 23 the 401 Building and everitually moved over there and 423 24 that's when the real growth started. £24 25 Q. And when you say, "that's when the real i 25 i Page 7 : growth started," do you mean both the scheme -- do you mean the scheme and the firm or either one or both? A. Both. Q. Do you recall approximately when you took the space in the 401 Building? A. | do not. Q. At the time everything imploded, how many partners did you have at the firm, do you recall? A. Are you saying partners and shareholders? Because remember, we had both, two designations. Q. J] want to start with just attorneys that had -- not in your firm name but named as "partner" on the cards, for example. A. I'd have to see a list of all the employees. We had a bunch. Q. Do you recall about how many attorneys you had working there? A. Approximately 70. Q. In the year before, do you recall how many you had? A. | do not. Q. So how many equity partners did you have or shareholders? J'm not sure of the word that we are using. A. Actual shareholders, equity shareholders Page 8 were two, me and Stu Rosenfeldy. Q. And everyone else was just_a partner for title purposes? A. There were shareholders for title purposes and partners for title purposes. Q. If someone was called a shareholder for title purposes then, did they get to receive any of the funds? Were they shareholders receiving money or they were not considered shareholders in that sense? MR. SCAROLA: Objection to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: What kind of funds are you talking about? BY MS. HADDAD: Q. In genera] from the firm. When you say equity shareholders, I understand that's you and Stu. What I'm saying is, if you had someone else that was named as a shareholder, why did you call them a shareholder as opposed to a partner? A. lt was a title of prestige and achievement. Q. So it was basically an ego thing, it had nothing really to do with the finances or hierarchy of the firm? A. They got paid more generally, but it did not have anything to do with distributions. Page 9 3 (Pages 6 to 9) FRIEDMAN, LOMBARDI & OLSON 305-371-6677 5ed93085-0554-447f-bcdd-ca2d8fe941df HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017492