Duplik 02-02-2016 påstår at Bilag E. side 5, bare er byttet ud med Bilag 1. er falsk – Eksempel på hvad der ikke er en overtrædelse af god advokat skik, efter advokat nævnets afgørelse i klagen 2020-1932. over Lundgrens advokater.

Danske Bank / Bribery is not only a problem of Danish society. When a client hires Lundgrens Advokater, to file a case of fraud, executed against a Danish bank customer in Jyske Bank. And the client clearly and clearly tells Lundgren's attorneys that the fraud crime was committed by Jyske Bank, and this is done with the Group management's knowledge, and certainly contributes to the client in the case BS-402/2015-VIB When the customer saw over 1 year. after Lundgren's lawyer b occurred and shortly after the lawyers had been hired to file a fraud case against Jyske Bank. Discover that even the same Lundgren's lawyer company, has been employed by the Jyske Bank Group, in a trade for DKK 600 million. And the client also discovers that Lundgren's lawyers have countered that some of their client's claims were brought to court. When Lundgrens directly against the client's instructions, does not present any of the client's claims against Jyske Bank, which the client has many times given Lundgrens Advokater clear inst

Her påstår Philip Baruch 2. febuar 2016
At Jyske bank bare har byttet bilag E. ud med Bilag 1. den 16-07-2008
–
Bemærk at Bilag E. lukkes 30-12-2008 ved Bilag 29.
som Lund Elmer Sander skjuler over for retten.

Klienten beder Lundgrens om at fremlægge dette her bilag som 103, men Lundgrens fortæller ikke at bilag 28-101 og 102. ikke er fremlagt, eller retter at retten for flere måneder siden skrev til lundgrens at rennen ville se bort fra bilag 28-101

Lundgrens advokater er lige så rådne som Jyske bank og Lund Elmer Sandager med