SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY

Transcription

1 1 1 Mark D. Goldman (0) GOLDMAN & ZWILLINGER PLLC 0 E. Greenway Parkway, Suite 0 Scottsdale, AZ Tel: (0) - Fax: (0) - docket@gzlawoffice.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Roma Khan SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY ROMA KHAN, ) Case No. CV1-0 ) Plaintiff, ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND vs. ) DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY ) AVNET, INC., a New York corporation, ) (Retaliatory Discharge, TRACY OUELETTE, an individual, ) A.R.S. -01; Slander; John Doe One, her husband, if any ) Intentional Infliction of Emotional ERIN LEWIN, an individual, ) Distress; Negligent Hiring; John Doe Two, her husband, if any, ) Negligent Supervision; STEVE LARSON, an individual, ) Negligent Retention; Breach of Jane Doe One, his wife, if any, ) Contract; Breach of Covenant of other John Does and Jane Does and ) Good Faith and Fair Dealing;Tortious XYZ Entities. ) Breach of the Covenant of Good ) Faith and Fair Dealing) Defendants. ) Assigned to: ) HON. MICHAEL GORDON Plaintiff Roma Khan, through her attorneys, Goldman & Zwillinger PLLC, hereby states her complaint against Defendants as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Roma Khan aka Rumisa Khalid Khan ( Ms. Khan ) is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 1

2 1 1. Defendant Avnet, Inc. ( Avnet ) is a New York corporation with its headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona. Avnet, a publicly traded Fortune 00 Corporation, is one of the world s largest distributors of electronic components with annual revenues over $ billion dollars. Avnet conducts business with over 0,000 customers in more than countries and is furthermore a federal contractor.. In connection with its business activities, Defendant Avnet has a significant and sizable in-house legal department staffed and managed by both lawyers and non-lawyers (the Legal Department ).. Defendant Tracy Ouellette ( Ouellette ) is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona and Director in the Contracts Division in the Legal Department at Avnet.. Defendant Erin Lewin ( Lewin ) is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona and Vice President and General Counsel, heading the Legal Department at Avnet.. Defendant Steve Larson ( Larson ) is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona and Vice President of Global Contracts in the Legal Department at Avnet.. Defendants John Doe One, John Doe Two and Jane Doe One were named to represent the spouses of Defendants Ouellette, Lewin and Larson, if any, and were joined in this action in order to bind and determine the liability of the parties' marital communities. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Ouellette, Lewin and Larson were acting for their own benefit and for the benefit of, or in furtherance of, their marital communities.. This action arises from acts that took place in Maricopa County, Arizona.

3 1 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE. The amount in controversy herein exceeds this Court s minimal jurisdictional amount and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to A.R.S GENERAL ALLEGATIONS. This is an action for wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy (retaliatory discharge in violation of A.R.S. -01), defamation (slander per se), intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the tort of breach of good faith and fair dealing in which Ms. Khan seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees. 1. Plaintiff Roma Khan was born in India and eventually immigrated to the United States at the age of where she graduated from high school, college and law school, and became licensed as an attorney in the State of Arizona. 1. Notwithstanding the inherent obstacles above, Ms. Khan believed that she had achieved the American dream on the day that she took the oath of admission to the State Bar of Arizona.. Ms. Khan was hired by Defendant Avnet to work in its Legal Department as a Contracts Manager in the Corporate Services Group Legal Division at Avnet in Phoenix, Arizona in August,.

4 1 1. In connection with her employment in the Legal Department at Avnet, Ms. Khan was assigned to and worked under the supervision and direction of Defendant Ouellette, then a Senior Contracts Administration Manager in the Legal Department who presented herself as an attorney.. In connection with Ms. Khan s employment at Avnet in its Legal Department, Defendant Avnet performed and Ms. Khan underwent a rigorous background check including but not limited to a check of any drug use, and personal scrutiny that included a review of academic, residential, achievement, job performance, attendance, litigation, personal history, driving records, bureau of workers compensation records and criminal history records.. Ms. Khan is currently an attorney, in good standing, licensed to practice law in the State of Arizona.. Ms. Khan received excellent work reviews at Avnet.. Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, Ms. Khan was wrongfully and maliciously retaliated against and her employment was terminated for reporting the improper, illegal and unethical acts of her supervisor (Defendant Ouellette), the General Counsel (Defendant Lewin), Defendants Larson and Avnet. Report of Violations and Retaliation. Ms. Khan continued to work at Defendant Avnet in its Legal Department until March, 1 when she was terminated after submitting a written memorandum, as a follow up response to an employee survey, to Defendant Avnet, Defendant Lewin, and Natasha Price, Avnet s Senior Vice President of Ethics and Compliance (the Memorandum ).

5 1 1. The Memorandum stated in part that Defendant Ouellette, a Manager of the Contracts Team in Avnet s Legal Department (a prior convicted felon and embezzler who had served jail time for felony theft) had been fraudulently impersonating, for years, an attorney at Avnet and was continuing to fraudulently impersonate an attorney at Avnet. See copy of the Memorandum attached hereto as Exhibit A.. On February, 1, Ms. Khan personally submitted the Memorandum to Defendants Avnet, and Lewin and Natasha Price.. On March 1, 1, the following day, Defendant Ouellette, a prior convicted felon and embezzler who had been fraudulently impersonating an attorney at Avnet since 0, was promoted to Director, Contracts Management in the Legal Department.. Ms. Khan understood the consequential harm that Defendant Ouellette s fraudulent and continuing impersonation of an attorney could have upon Avnet in connection with the contracts wherein Ouellette, for years, affirmatively represented to lawyers, Avnet employees, suppliers, defense contractors, business partners, customers, suppliers and the federal government, that she was an attorney.. Upon information and belief, Defendants Avnet and Lewin have never informed or disclosed to Avnet s shareholders, directors, accountants, certified public accountants, auditors, customers, suppliers, business partners, defense contractors, the federal government, or anyone else with whom Defendant Ouellette had dealt, that Defendant Ouellette had fraudulently impersonated an attorney at Avnet from 0 through June, 1, nor have any of

6 1 1 the foregoing parties been informed of the legal consequences of such fraudulent impersonation of an attorney by Ouellette.. Upon information and belief, Avnet has never informed law enforcement or the State Bar of Arizona that Ms. Ouellette has impersonated an attorney at Avnet from 0 through June, 1 despite the fact that such fraudulent impersonation of an attorney is criminal conduct in violation of Arizona statutes and in violation of Arizona Supreme Court Rule 1. Ouellette s Impersonation of an Attorney. After being hired to work in Avnet s Legal Department, Ms. Khan was led to believe, like other employees at Avnet, that Defendant Ouellette was an attorney at Avnet.. Ms. Khan discovered that Defendant Ouellette was not only not an attorney, but worse yet, that Ouellette was affirmatively denied admission to the State Bar of Arizona because she could not pass the requirements of the State Bar s Committee on Character and Fitness (the Character and Fitness Committee ).. In connection with what Ms. Khan understood her legal and ethical responsibilities, and responsibilities to Avnet and its shareholders to be, Ms. Khan, as aforestated, brought Defendant Ouellette s conduct to the attention of Avnet s General Counsel, Lewin, and its Senior Vice President of Ethics and Compliance, Natasha Price. 0. Defendant Ouellette s impersonation of an attorney at Avnet was so pervasive, and Avnet s Legal Department s oversight and supervision were so lax, ineffective, incompetent and complicit, that Natasha Price, although she is a seasoned attorney and former

7 1 1 assistant attorney general, and currently Avnet s Senior Vice President of Ethics and Compliance, claimed to Ms. Khan that she believed Ouellette to be an attorney until March, 1, when Ms. Khan personally brought to her attention that in fact Tracy Ouellette was not an attorney and had never been an attorney. 1. Alternatively, Natasha Price s claim of ignorance to Ms. Khan may have been phony so as to insulate and shield Natasha Price personally from civil, criminal and ethical culpability in allowing Ouellette to impersonate a lawyer at Avnet.. Defendant Ouellette and Defendant Lewin, Avnet s General Counsel, conspired to keep Ouellette s background and impersonation of an attorney from the attention and knowledge of the State Bar of Arizona, Avnet s accountants, certified public accountants, auditors, employees, directors, executive officers, shareholders, suppliers, customers, business partners, defense contractors, attorneys, law enforcement and the federal government.. Defendant Ouellette was in fact convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit and deception, and affirmatively denied a license to practice law by the State Bar of Arizona and never granted a license to practice law in any other state.. Defendant Ouellette, an embezzler and once convicted felon for theft and who served time in jail for criminal conduct involving of dishonesty, fraudulently impersonated an attorney at Defendant Avnet from 0 until March, 1 as further evidenced by her LinkedIn biography, published to the world, wherein she, for several years, unambiguously and expressly represented herself and her job description as Tracy Ouellette, JD an Attorney employed at Avnet Electronics in a Law Practice ( Original LinkedIn Page ) with business

8 1 1 connections including Avnet employees, management and executives, Avnet attorneys in its Legal Department, customers and suppliers of Avnet, attorneys, employees of the federal government, U.S. Army, other governmental entities, businesses and law firms, each one individual described infra. See screenshot of Original LinkedIn Page of Defendant Tracy Ouellette as of February, 1 attached hereto as Exhibit B.. In connection with Defendant Ouellette s representation of herself as an Attorney at Avnet on her LinkedIn biography, the term and appellation Attorney had to be typed in, letter by letter, as such a term was not part of a menu of choices.. Avnet was well aware of social media usage by its employees and specifically discussed it in its Code of Conduct, defined infra where Avnet states: The Internet offers us various opportunities to engage with stakeholders, using an assortment of social media tools. Such media include blogs, micro blogs (like Twitter ), social networking sites (like Facebook and LinkedIn ), wikis, photo and video sharing sites, and chat rooms. Keep in mind that electronic messages are permanent, transferable records of our communications. If released to the public, they can greatly affect Avnet s reputation. To avoid any negative effects our use of social media may have on our company, we must never give the appearance of speaking or acting on Avnet s behalf unless we are authorized to do so. (emphasis added).. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant Ouellette specifically held herself out via LinkedIn (which is really a business networking site, rather than social networking as described above) to the world in general, the business community, and in particular her LinkedIn connections as Tracy Ouellette, JD an Attorney engaged in Law Practice at Avnet and Defendant Lewin allowed her to do so.. In or about March, 1, after Ms. Khan s submission of her Memorandum, Defendant Ouellette altered her LinkedIn biography and removed the job description

9 1 1 Attorney and substituted it with the job description Legal Services along with keeping the title and moniker JD after her name ( Altered LinkedIn Page ). A copy of the screenshot of the Altered LinkedIn Page, as of the filing of this lawsuit, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.. Defendant Ouellette s Altered LinkedIn Page remained deceptive and fraudulent, and yet was approved by Defendant Lewin, the General Counsel. 0. In or about June, 1, after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, Defendant Ouellette again altered her LinkedIn biography, moving the term JD yet keeping her job description Legal Services along with a background describing her Skills & Expertise in Contract Negotiations, Corporate Law, Contract Management and Government Contracts ( Further Altered LinkedIn Page ). A copy of the screenshot of the Further Altered LinkedIn Page is attached hereto as Exhibit N. 1. Defendant Ouellette s Further Altered LinkedIn Page remained deceptive and fraudulent, and yet was approved by Defendant Lewin, the General Counsel.. On or about July 0, 1, after Ms. Khan filed an unauthorized practice of law charge ( UPL ) with the State Bar under Supreme Court Rule, Defendant Ouellette again altered her LinkedIn biography and removed the term JD, yet kept her job description Legal Services and her representation of membership in various attorney organizations such as Association of Corporate Counsel which would reasonably induce others to believe that the person [Ouellette] or entity is licensed to practice law in this state. Arizona Supreme Court Rule 1, infra. ( Further, Further Altered LinkedIn Page ). A copy of the screenshot of

10 1 1 the Further, Further Altered LinkedIn Page, after the filing of the UPL charge is attached hereto as Exhibit O.. Defendant Ouellette s current Further, Further Altered LinkedIn Page remains deceptive and fraudulent, and yet was approved by Defendant Lewin, the General Counsel.. Arizona Supreme Court rules promulgated pursuant to the Arizona Constitution clearly prohibit the use of the title Attorney and the use of the designation J.D. by any individual who is not a licensed attorney, as that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. See Supreme Court Rule 1 below.. Supreme Court Rule 1 states in relevant part: B. Unauthorized practice of law includes but is not limited to: (1) engaging in the practice of law by persons or entities not authorized to practice pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant to Rule (d); or () using the designations lawyer, attorney at law, counselor at law, law, law office, J.D., Esq., or other equivalent words by any person or entity who is not authorized to practice law in this state pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specially admitted to practice pursuant to Rule (d), the use of which is reasonably likely to induce others to believe that the person or entity is authorized to engage in the practice of law in this state.. Defendant Ouellette s Altered LinkedIn Page continued to be fraudulent, deceptive and violates Arizona Supreme Court Rule 1, although condoned and approved by the General Counsel of Avnet, Defendant Lewin.. Defendant Ouellette s Further Altered LinkedIn Page continued to be fraudulent, deceptive and violate Arizona Supreme Court Rule 1, although condoned and approved by the General Counsel of Avnet, Defendant Lewin.

11 1 1. Defendant Ouellette s current Further, Further Altered LinkedIn Page continues to be fraudulent, deceptive and violates Arizona Supreme Court Rule 1, although condoned and approved by the General Counsel of Avnet, Defendant Lewin.. Defendant Lewin, Avnet s General Counsel and formerly Avnet s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, condoned and approved Defendant Ouellette s past and current impersonation of an attorney, including Defendant Ouellette s Original LinkedIn Page, Altered LinkedIn Page, Further Altered LinkedIn Page, and Further, Further Altered LinkedIn Page, all the while Defendant Lewin knew full well that Defendant Ouellette was not an attorney and notwithstanding that such a fraudulent representation was and is a violation of Arizona Supreme Court Rule 1, the Arizona criminal law statutes, and a fraud upon Avnet s employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, business partners and the federal government. 0. Defendant Ouellette, during contract negotiations, fraudulently represented that she was an attorney to Avnet s employees and customers including but not limited to defense contractors Rockwell Collins, General Dynamics and GE Aviation. 1. Defendant Ouellette, during negotiations on behalf of Avnet, fraudulently represented that she was an attorney to Avnet s employees and then potential suppliers, Mocana Corporation and Stonestreet One, LLC.. Defendant Ouellette, during contract negotiations on behalf of Avnet, fraudulently represented that she was an attorney to Avnet s employees and the federal government.

12 1 1. Defendant Ouellette represented to numerous Corporate Account Managers employed at Avnet that she was an attorney at Avnet, including but not limited to expressly doing so at a Corporate Account Manager Staff meeting in the fall of. Defendant Ouellette s Criminal History of Dishonesty and Deceit. Defendant Ouellette has a significant history of criminal conduct involving dishonesty and deceit including credit card fraud, felony fraud and embezzlement.. Defendant Ouellette was arrested on or about June 0, 1 and issued a criminal citation under A.R.S. 1-0 for receipt of anything of value obtained by the fraudulent use of a credit card. A copy of the police credit card fraud report is attached hereto as Exhibit D.. Defendant Ouellette was arrested on or about March 0, on suspicion of two counts of felony credit card fraud. A copy of the felony credit card fraud police report attached hereto as Exhibit E.. The above felony credit card fraud police report describes in detail Defendant Ouellette s fraud along with the police discovery of checks in Ouellette s possession that were in the name of another person and fraudulently obtained by Ouellette. See Exhibit E.. Defendant Ouellette, undaunted by her prior arrests, was again arrested on or about March, for embezzlement from her then place of employment and issued a criminal citation. Defendant Ouellette, who was already suspected by her employer of stealing money from the cash drawer, was observed by her employer via closed circuit video stealing money from the cash drawer. See copy of citation and incident report attached hereto as Exhibit F. 1

13 1 1. Approximately three weeks after being arrested for embezzlement at her place of employment, on April,, Defendant Ouellette was indicted by a Maricopa County Grand Jury for credit card fraud involving thousands of dollars in connection with her March 0, arrest (the Indictment ). A copy of the Indictment is attached as Exhibit G. 0. Defendant Ouellette was arrested on or about December, in connection with a DUI. See copy of docket sheet from court attached hereto as Exhibit H. deceit. 1. All of the foregoing conduct, except the DUI, involves crimes of dishonesty and. The Indictment of Defendant Ouellette states in part: TRACY A. OUELLETTE AND KIMBERLY A. PHELAN, on or between the 1st day of January,, and the 1st day of March,, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtained a benefit from American Express by means of fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions, in violation of A.R.S. 1., 1-0, 1-01, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-01, and On July,, Defendant Ouellette, as part of a compromise plea agreement, pled guilty to an Amended Count I: Theft, a class felony, in violation of A.R.S. 1-0, 1-01, 1-0, 1-01 and 1-0. A copy of the Guilty Plea is attached hereto as Exhibit I.. Defendant was conclusively found guilty of the felony crime of Theft, a class felony, in violation of A.R.S. Sec. 1-0, 01, 0, 01, 1, a crime of significant dishonesty based upon the fraudulent use of credit cards to steal non-essential, expensive and frivolous luxury items.. The conclusiveness of guilt of Defendant Ouellette exists today. 1

14 1 1. The proof of conviction was and is conclusiveness of guilt of Defendant Ouellette of the felony crime of Theft, a class felony, in violation of A.R.S. Sec. 1-0, 01, 0, 01, 1.. Defendant Ouellette s conviction was never expunged, nor has the fact of conviction or conclusiveness of guilt been removed.. In connection with Defendant Ouellette s Indictment and subsequent felony conviction for theft, Defendant Ouellette was sentenced to two () months in jail, ordered to pay thousands of dollars in restitution to American Express, Bank of America and Z Gallerie, and further sentenced to community service and probation. See copy of Court Order attached hereto as Exhibit J.. Defendant Ouellette s presentence report (the Presentence Report ) describes in detail her scheme and artifice to fraudulently use credit cards, nature and character. See copy of Defendant Ouellette s Presentence Report attached hereto as Exhibit K. 0. Defendant Ouellette s request for leniency indicates she claimed that she is aware that she will not be able to practice law with this felony conviction. 1. The Deputy County Attorney s statement is summarized in the Presentence Report as follows: [T]he fraudulent credit card usage was fairly extensive and the codefendant reported the theft of the card to police. Ms. Miller [Deputy County Attorney] notes that items purchased were expensive, frivolous and unnecessary items, and the defendant did not have to complete this crime. Ms. Miller also indicates the defendant did not need any of the items she purchased and she believes this makes jail time warranted and appropriate. (emphasis added).

15 1 1. The Presentence Report in its Discussion and Evaluation section further states: Although she lacks a prior record, the information in the police reports reveals this type of offense is not unusual or out of character for the defendant. The defendant participated in the credit card fraud but she was also found with fraudulent checks. It is also a concern that defendant had opened a checking account using a friend s identification and also assisted another friend in fraudulently using the credit card. It appears that the defendant is willing to manipulate her friendships in her quest for material goods.. [I]t would appear her actions in this offense were calculated and manipulative. (emphasis added).. The Presentence Report in its Discussion and Evaluation section further states: After considering the thefts were repetitive, involved deception, and a violation of trust it will be recommended that the defendant receive punitive sanctions for this offense.. Ironically, the theme of Defendant Ouellette s statement in the Presentence Report is that she has learned a valuable lesson.. In stark contradiction to Ouellette s statement of learning a valuable lesson she was arrested again for embezzlement one year after the separate felony crimes for which she was indicted and eventually convicted and the subject of the Presentence Report. Presentence Report, Exhibit K and embezzlement arrest report, Exhibit F.. Consistent with the Presentence Report, Defendant Ouellette impersonated an attorney at Avnet for years until her conduct was reported in writing by Ms. Khan in the Memorandum and such conduct was not unusual or out of character for the [D]efendant.. Consistent with the Presentence Report, Defendant Ouellette s conduct at Avnet against Ms. Khan was calculated and manipulative. See

16 1 1. The Presentence Report mistakenly states and relies upon the false assumption that Defendant Ouellette had no prior criminal history when in reality Defendant Ouellette already had been arrested and cited once for embezzlement and arrested and cited once for receipt of property obtained through the fraudulent use of a credit card.. Based upon the foregoing, it is evident that Defendant Ouellette lied about her criminal past to the Adult Probation Officer who authored the Presentence Report, and consequently the Court s sentence of Ouellette was based upon further fraud and deceit by her. 0. Defendant Ouellette, who is presently a Director in Avnet s Legal Department, served two months in jail for a crime of dishonesty and conviction for felony theft. 1. In Defendant Ouellette s statement to adult probation in connection with her Presentencing Report as to her felony theft conviction, Defendant Ouellette claimed not to have any problems with alcohol.. Notwithstanding Defendant Ouellette s claim to have no problems with alcohol, Defendant was again arrested on or about December,, and charged with a DUI in Maricopa County. A copy of the court docket is attached hereto as Exhibit H.. Defendant Ouellette pled guilty to this DUI on or about June,.. Notwithstanding the felony conviction for theft, criminal citations for embezzlement and receipt of property obtained by the fraudulent use of a credit card, and DUI, and accompanying allegations as to possession of phony and fraudulent checks, Defendant Ouellette was accepted to Arizona State University s Sandra Day O Connor College of Law ( ASU Law School ).

17 1 1. Upon information and belief, Ms. Ouellette hid her criminal history from ASU Law School.. Alternatively, upon information and belief, ASU Law School knowingly admitted a prior convicted felon, for a crime involving dishonesty, who could not reasonably be expected to be admitted to the State Bar of Arizona or any other state, to a coveted seat in its law school.. Notwithstanding all of the foregoing conduct evincing dishonesty, criminality and fraud, Defendant Ouellette was allowed to graduate from ASU Law School in 0 or 0. Avnet s Knowledge of Ouellette s Impersonation of an Attorney. Notwithstanding Defendant Ouellette s prior conviction for felony theft and other criminal history of embezzlement, Defendant Ouellette was hired by Avnet as an intern in its Legal Department in 0, working under the supervision of Defendant Larson.. Upon graduation from ASU law school, Defendant Ouellette was hired as a full time employee employee and Contacts Manager in Defendant Avnet s Legal Department despite her well documented history of multiple incidents of criminal conduct. 0. Upon graduation from ASU law school in 0, Defendant Ouellette commenced to represent herself as an Attorney at Avnet, making such representations to Avnet management, her fellow Avnet employees, Avnet customers, Avnet suppliers, shareholders and business partners, lawyers, defense contractors and the federal government. 1. Upon graduation from ASU Law School, Defendant Ouellette applied for licensing as an attorney to the State Bar of Arizona.

18 1 1. Defendant Ouellette was denied a law license by the State Bar of Arizona based upon her failure to pass the requirements of the Character and Fitness Committee.. Defendant Ouellette has never been licensed to practice law in Arizona or any other state.. Attorneys in Avnet s Legal Department, including Defendant Lewin, Avnet s General Counsel and Defendant Larson, knew full well that Defendant Ouellette was denied admission to the Arizona Bar based upon her failure to pass the requirements of the Character and Fitness Committee.. Attorneys in Avnet s legal department, including Defendants Lewin and Larson, knew full well that Defendant Ouellette was expressly representing herself as an attorney employed at Avnet notwithstanding her express denial of admission to the Bar. Avnet s Cover Up of Ouellette s Impersonation of an Attorney. Defendants Lewin and Ouellette are social friends, and consequently Defendant Lewin conspired with and/or allowed and/or aided and abetted Defendant Ouellette, a prior convicted felon who served time in jail for felony theft, to cover up her fraudulent impersonation of an attorney, all to the detriment of Avnet and its shareholders, notwithstanding Defendant Lewin s obligations to Avnet, its shareholders, employees (including Ms. Khan), customers, certified public accountants, auditors, the State Bar of Arizona and others while Lewin was employed by Avnet as Assistant General Counsel, Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer and then General Counsel.

19 1 1. When questioned by Avnet employees as to Defendant Ouellette s fraudulent impersonation of a lawyer, Defendant Lewin has made such cavalier responses as, Tracy passed the Bar exam. Therefore she s an attorney. Who cares?. Defendants Lewin and Ouellette displayed and continue to display a complete contempt for the Arizona Supreme Court Rules, the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, Arizona statutory law, the Arizona Constitution, the public and every lawyer in the State of Arizona who honestly obtained a license to practice law.. The immediate past Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Avnet, David Birk, discovered that Defendant Ouellette was denied admission to the Arizona Bar based upon her failure to pass the requirements of the Character and Fitness Committee and therefore made it clear that Defendant Ouellette would never be promoted to a Director position within the legal department at Avnet. 0. Defendants Lewin and Larson persuaded David Birk that Defendant Ouellette was vital to the Contracts team within the Legal Department, while knowing themselves that Defendant Ouellette failed to pass the requirements of the Character and Fitness Committee, had a criminal history involving dishonesty and deceit, and was affirmatively posing as and impersonating a lawyer at Avnet. 1. Defendants Lewin and Larson conspired to cover up Defendant Ouellette s impersonation of an attorney and shield her conduct from David Birk.

20 1 1. Immediately after Defendant Lewin was appointed permanent General Counsel, she promoted and appointed Defendant Ouellette to the position of Director in the Contracts Division in the Legal Department.. At the time of General Counsel David Birk s retirement, Defendant Ouellette was holding herself out to the world, via the Original LinkedIn Page and other means, as an attorney employed at Avnet.. Upon the retirement of David Birk, Defendant Lewin became Acting General Counsel of Avnet in November, 1.. Upon David Birk s retirement and Defendant Lewin s promotion to Acting General Counsel, Defendant Ouellette s impersonation of an attorney escalated and consequently Ms. Khan felt compelled to report Defendant Ouellette s conduct regardless of the personal consequences to her.. In and around the time that Ms. Khan sent the Memorandum, she was being requested to sign Avnet s Code of Conduct, described infra.. Ms. Khan felt that she could not in good faith sign the Code of Conduct while at the same time knowing, yet not reporting, that Defendant Ouellette was impersonating a lawyer at Avnet.. On February, 1, Ms. Khan first made an anonymous submission in writing and citing Defendant Ouellette s impersonation of an attorney.. No action was taken by Avnet of which Ms. Khan was aware as Defendant Ouellette continued to represent herself as an attorney at Avnet.