Lawyers' "Claims" against Jeff Baron

When even the most basic evidence is examined, it is clear that Jeff paid his lawyers in full pursuant to the terms of their engagement agreements. The groundless nature of the claims are from attorneys’ own documentation and sworn testimony:

  • Attorney Stanly Broome wants more than the $10,000.00 per month capped fee he was paid. His claim is that his contract does not contain any term limiting the amount of fees which may be incurred by the attorneys in any month. However, Broome’s assertion is so groundless that it is hard to imagine anyone making it with a straight face. Broome’s contract contains a clear provision expressly limiting the amount of fees which may be incurred by the attorneys to $10,000.00 per month.
  • Attorney Jeanne Crandall wants more than the flat rate she contracted at and was paid at. Her argument is that she was billing hourly at $300.00/hour. However, her own invoice proves the groundless nature of her claim—she billed, and was paid at a flat monthly fee.
  • Attorney Gerrit Pronske was paid $75,000.00 up front. Pronske wants hundreds of thousands of dollars more. His argument is that $75,000.00 was just an initial retainer. However, Pronske has admitted that “There are no engagement agreements relating to the representation” and for almost a year after receiving a $75,000.00 fee and working on the case, Pronske sent no contract, no engagement letter, no bill, no invoice, no demand for payment, no hourly work report, and no other document of any type alleging that the flat fee payment was actually a ‘retainer’.
  • Attorney Dean Ferguson wants more than the $22,000.00 capped fee he agreed to and was paid. His latest claim and argument is that he is allowed to violate his engagement agreement with Jeff and charge more than the agreed upon (and paid in full) fee cap because he was ‘defrauded’. Ferguson’s claim is that Jeff ‘fraudulently’ represented that the money would be paid from Jeff’s million dollar trust and not from Jeff’s pocket because Jeff was personally “destitute” (according to Ferguson). However, the trust’s money is just as green and in US Dollars as that in Jeff’s pocket. The source of the money to pay the bill (the million dollar trust or Jeff’s pocket) has no materiality as to the rate agreed to by Dean Ferguson.
    • 1 In his original sworn testimony before this Court, Dean Ferguson testified that his cap was for work only to August 21, and the cap did not apply because it was based on him working 33% of his time not 99% of his time. That testimony is completely discredited by his ‘claim’ affidavit and exhibits which prove clearly that the cap was for all of his work, expressly through August 31 and that the cap was clearly not based on the work being 33% of Ferguson’s time.
  • Attorney [name redacted] wants more than the $40/hour fee he charged and was paid. His argument— his fee was really $300/hour and $260/hour is due him. However, his own emails proves his fee was $40/hour, and he bragged—in writing— his rate of $40/hour gave Jeff ‘more bang for the buck’ to encourage Jeff to give more work to [name redacted].
  • Attorney Elizabeth Schurig wants more than the million dollar fee she has already been paid. Schurig submitted a claim for work performed—without any contract—for the company owned by her colleague, AsiaTrust. However, AsiaTrust is neither owned nor controlled in any way by Jeff, and AsiaTrust, itself has filed a claim against Jeff and/or Ondova. Jeff never agreed or undertook to pay the debts of AsiaTrust, nor has anyone alleged that he has.
  • Attorneys Bickle & Brewer want more than the $200,000.00 they were paid. Their argument-- they should be paid for unexplained work done prior to being hired by Jeff. Their retainer contract clearly does not call for payment of 'bonus' fees for work done by Bickle&Brewer before they were retained to work for Jeff. Notably the district court was forced to admit that much of Bickle&Brewer's fee was at an unreasonable rate (billing up to $900 per hour of work), and based on the judge's ruling-- if the ruling was applied in any reasonable and fair way to Jeff, Bickle&Brewer would owe around $100,000.00 in excessive fees paid by Jeff.

The above are just some examples. The full explanation showing clearly that the attorney claims are groundless were filed with the district court as documents 351,442, 443, and 445.
The district court judge does not want the public to see many of these documents and has ordered the matters "Sealed" and hidden from the public view.

Jeff then filed exculpatory evidence in defense of the groundless and fraudulent claims, clearly demonstrating their falsehood (see downloadable documents above). After filing, the judge rejected the filing and sealed Jeff's responses from the public. Now, with Jeff's responses under seal, the only records available to the public are the false claims and not any of Jeff's exculpatory evidence.
Jeff also submitted a preliminary response (beginning on paragraph 17) and declaration concerning many of the lawyers' "claims" testifying to their falsehood. At the hearing for this issue, the judge refused Jeff's request for: 1) a jury trial 2) experienced trial counsel 3) funds for an expert to refute the false representations (see Gary Schepps Declaration). In other words, Jeff was denied due process.
Despite the showing made by jeff, the judge denied considering Jeff's evidence and and summarily adopted the lawyers claims, denying Jeff's repeated please for a jury trial.

Add new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.