[brief] 730a  [...] collaborated with [...] on the preparation of the Releases.  218a (20:16–21:7); 220a (35:20–36:10).  Said Releases listed [...] as the attorney for [...] and set forth that all notices to [...] were to be sent to [...] and/or [...].  564a–569a; 591a–595a; 611a–615a.  [...] never conveyed any of his interest in [...] to anyone other than the 99% he conveyed to [...] pursuant to the instructions and direction of [...].  192a (34:15 – 35:4); 193a–194a (49:22 – 51:1); 204a (202:16-19); 205a (213:20-25); 206a (216:20–217:25).  [...] testified that he never heard of, knew, or communicated with [...].  199a (179:18–180:21).  [...] testified that prior to being served with the Complaint in this matter, he never heard of, knew, or communicated with [...] despite claiming to be the attorney for [...] and despite the fact that [...]’ name appeared in the [...]-MTDC Assignment and Releases.  224a (143:1-6); 564a–569a; 591a–595a; 611a–615a.  Similarly, [...] never heard of, knew, or communicated with [...] despite claiming to be the attorney for [...] and [...] owning 99% of [...].  759a–760a (45:22–46:4); 224a (143:7-22); 139a; 142a.  Finally, [...] never recalled ever meeting [...], and [...] “stipulated” that he never spoke or communicated with [...] despite claiming to be the attorney for [...] and Defendants claiming, with a forged and unexecuted document, that after the death of Teddy [...] [...] was owned by [...].  763a–764a (164:3–167:1); 291a  However, [...] never owned [...], never heard of [...], never heard of, knew, or met [...], never heard of [...], and was never at the offices of Defendant [...].  755a (407:9-23); 754a (334:22–336:1); 737a (409:7-13).  [...] specifically testified that he never heard of, knew, or communicated with [...], and he never met or communicated with [...].  305a (97:3-14); 308a (112:6-8); 312a (138:3-13); 316a (204:16-19); 308a (112:9 – 113:1).  Further, [...] never heard of, knew, or communicated with [...], despite Defendants claiming that at some point in time [...] was owned by [...].  310a (122:6-23); 316a (203:19 – 204:9).  In addition, [...] testified that [...] was owned by Teddy [...], and that prior to the death of Teddy [...], [...] dealt with only Teddy [...] regarding [...].  760a (47:16–48:1); 761a (120:9-12); 762a (139:22–140:10).  However, [...] and [...] both testified that neither one of them ever conveyed their membership interest in [...] to Teddy [...] or anyone else.  306a (104:23–105:1, 105:22-25); 313a (162:16–163:8, 164:4-22); 314a (166:22-25); 316a (202:1–203:7); 317a (207:2-13); 318a (214:21–215:8); 192a (34:15–35:4); 193a–194a (49:22 – 51:1); 204a (202:16-19); 205a (213:20-25); 206a (216:20–217:25).  [...] and [...] staged the April 2009 meeting, at the office of [...], where [...] misrepresented to [...] that he was the attorney for [...].  253a (39:21–40:8); 253a–254a (40:21–41:1).  In addition, [...] testified that [...] misrepresented that the other person at the meeting in the office of [...] who was there to accept the $250,000.00 check on behalf of [...], was William [...]. 254a (43:3-9); 263a–264a (349:10–353:21).  Finally, [...] authored and forwarded a default letter dated December 17, 2009 to Plaintiffs, acting as the attorney for the sham entity [...] in furtherance of Defendants’ conspiracy.  621a; 221a–223a (86:1–94:14).  POINT I THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS AGAINST [...] DID NOT FALL UNDER THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE EXCEPTION TO THE AOM STATUTE (1T37).