Opinion ID: 2182224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the $750 demand

Text: When Jefferson asked Respondent for the files in both cases, Respondent told Jefferson that he (Respondent) wanted $750 to release the files for work he had done, money spent and money owed to Respondent by Jefferson. Jefferson had gone to a new attorney, one Michael H. Simons, Esq., who had written the Respondent (on January 2, 1980) advising Respondent that Jefferson had requested him to represent him and asked the Respondent to contact him to make arrangements to obtain information (the letter also enclosed a letter dated December 19, 1979 from Jefferson to the Respondent discharging the Respondent). The Respondent received this letter but he did not correspond with Simons. Simons then wrote another letter dated January 28, 1980 to the Respondent confirming a phone conversation with the Respondent. In this letter, Simons indicated that he would protest Respondent's itemized expenses but noted that Respondent did not want to discuss the matter further. He reiterated that if the Respondent released the files or allowed copying, that he would honor the Respondent's invoice. Respondent received this letter too. To show that he told Jefferson in writing what the $750 was for the Respondent pointed to an undated note entitled To Whom it May Concern and testified that it was given to Jefferson. This note dealt solely with the First Case and said that I release the papers concerning this accident in consideration of payment of advanced costs and a nominal fee. Although the Respondent listed various costs, all of these costs had to do with the Second Case except $19 that was expended in the First Case. Respondent considered a nominal fee to be $300 to $350. In addition, Respondent wanted the $200 that he claimed was unpaid from the 1975 case. The Respondent conceded ultimately that he never gave any breakdown to Jefferson nor Simons of the demanded $750. When asked what he wanted the $750 for, Respondent testified that it was for the return of both files. Yet when it was pointed out that the To Whom it May Concern letter mentioned only the First Case, the Respondent answered by saying that the omission of the Second Case was probably a secretary's mistake.