Key Arguments Presented

• "No Representational Harm" Was a Lie: Ms. Wood told the ARDC on January 16, 2026 that DeBlasio's conduct caused "no representational harm." Three weeks later, Oppenheimer filed a 7-page brief built entirely on the consequences of DeBlasio's misconduct—weaponizing the very evidence of his malpractice against the clients he harmed.
• Oppenheimer Has Not Addressed Any Merits: In its February 6, 2026 filing, Oppenheimer devoted seven pages exclusively to procedural timeliness arguments. It did not address fraud, the 56% fee increase, arbitrator misconduct, discovery violations, or manifest disregard of elder protection laws.
• Ms. Wood's Four False Representations Debunked:
  • "The Transcripts Did Not Exist" – FALSE. DeBlasio had the official FINRA audio recordings the entire time.
  • "Retaining Other Counsel" – FALSE. Complainants have been forced to proceed pro se because no attorney would accept the case after DeBlasio's malpractice.
  • "Withdrawal Was Not at a Critical Time" – FALSE. DeBlasio withdrew 8 days after his recorded admission while Oppenheimer's sanctions motion was pending.
  • "Genuinely Remorseful" – If true, he would provide an accountability letter. He has refused.
• Pattern of Conduct Serving Oppenheimer's Interests: The filing documents a pattern where every action DeBlasio took harmed his clients and helped Oppenheimer. Six ignored deadline warnings, six ignored transcript requests, withdrawal concealing malpractice, and refusal to provide an accountability letter. The ARDC is asked to investigate whether this alignment is "more than coincidental."
• Request for Expedited Hearing: The federal court may rule on equitable tolling at any time. A formal ARDC finding of misconduct would constitute powerful evidence. Delay benefits only DeBlasio and Oppenheimer.