Pro Bono Legal Services Retainer Agreement. Attorney: Loren Christopher Collins, Esq. Client: Lucas Danie… by Lucas Daniel Smith
I’m ready for your help, Loren. If you need to add anything to the contract please do so quickly and lets get started. Thank you.
Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but there’s a reason that lawyers draft representation contracts, not the clients. I already said I’d take care of drafting a contract; given the impending deadline in your extradition, I would think your energies would be better served working on that directly, rather than drafting your first attorney’s retainer agreement.
Because not only are there small issues with this contract (trust me, no retainer agreement has ever needed to include the lawyer’s birthdate), but there are several major ones that overshadow the rest.
First, a retainer agreement is a contract first and foremost for the person retaining the services of the attorney. Thus, while there is often a secondary line for the attorney’s signature (to indicate that he agrees to the representation), there is always a line for the client to sign, stating that he agrees to retain the attorney, and agrees to the stated scope and terms of the representation. What you’ve prepared doesn’t include a place for your signature, nor does it involve you agreeing to any terms of the representation.
Second, you don’t seem to have thought through the consequences of the prohibition on communications with the U.S. government, which naturally would prohibit me from talking to the U.S. embassy or the State Department. Your case concerns the extradition of a U.S. citizen to a foreign country, and yet the contract, as written, would completely prevent me from interacting with the exact governmental agencies that are most experienced and capable of assisting in and preventing your extradition. This would be akin to signing a contract to provide security services for an apartment complex, but agreeing to never contact the police. It is a massive obstacle in doing the job successfully.
If your concern is about legal or criminal liability for non-extradition-related matters, then perhaps the prohibition could be drafted more narrowly. In any case, there needs to be an exception to communicate with necessary governmental agencies regarding the extradition *itself*.
Third, one of the most central aspects of a representation contract is the subject of the representation itself. The attorney is being retained to provide representation not in ALL civil and criminal matters the client is involved in, but only in the matters specified in the contract. In your case, that’s your extradition to Kenya on charges of bribery, but even that’s not enough. I need to know upfront what the scope of the matter is that I’m agreeing to, and that means knowing at least the basics of the extradition itself. Is there only one charge of bribery underlying the extradition, or is there more to it? If I specify in the contract that it’s only for the one charge, and there’s actually more, then I’m not responsible for anything outside that one charge, and you’re at risk. But I can’t specify a broader scope of representation for the extradition without knowing what *I’m* agreeing to; that would be irresponsible on my end.
This is why I asked for the extradition paperwork. It best proves the scope of the representation. Maybe you’re uncomfortable about providing that to me first, regardless of its importance to the case. I’m not sure why that would be, since you said a few weeks ago that you were going to be posting those documents online. But regardless, I’m willing to consider a workaround.
Everything I need and asked for (extradition documentation from Kenya and the DR, any relevant case numbers, the warrant, communications with DR and other DR or Kenyan or US government authorities regarding the extradition, the 48-hour notices from Thursday, etc.), email *all* of those to Bruce. You already said he was going to be included in communications, so he’s guaranteed to see all of this anyway.
Bruce can then review the documentation, and establish what the extradition entails. If he wants to, he can even call the U.S. embassy in Santo Domingo or the relevant DR agency to follow up and confirm the status of the extradition, so I know precisely what sort of timetable we’re looking at. He can confirm with you if there are any impending deadlines, because a lawyer always needs to know if there’s anything immediately on the horizon when he agrees to representation. Then, Bruce tells me what specifically the full scope of the extradition involves based on the paperwork, and he provides me with the case number(s) to include in the contract, so I can prepare a final draft.
While I think having an intermediary is an unnecessary step in these circumstances, I think this would fully accomplish everything you would want. It doesn’t even have to take much time, given that we’re talking about emails and phone calls. And there’s obviously no reason why Bruce can’t be trusted with your extradition paperwork. The sooner you get it all to him, the better.
Loren wrote:
I think my inclusion as a third party intermediary, set up to receive copies of all correspondence in these extradition proceedings, adds unnecessary complication far in excess of any benefit it might produce.
I’m also concerned that my inclusion as a third party in this matter might somehow impair the traditional lawyer/client confidentiality arrangement and perhaps result in some unforeseen problems and challenges.
“Personal and confidential” and publishing on the Internet are contradictory.
Bruce wrote:
I agree it’s unnecessary, as I said so above. If Lucas is willing to forward me that documentation directly, then he doesn’t need you to act as an intermediary. Having you as an intermediary for the documentation was only a compromise, since I trust that you would give me an honest accounting of what papers you’d received and an honest summary of the basics of the case. And obviously he trusts you enough that he should have no problem at all with you seeing the documentation before me. In fact, from the sound of it, I’m surprised he hasn’t shared more of it with you already.
If you don’t want to be involved in further communications, that’s up to you. But if all you relay to me is, say, a copy of the warrant and the case number you’ve confirmed, that would be public information anyway.
And remember two things: 1) Lucas himself asked for you to be included in this, so obviously *he* believes your inclusion is worthwhile; and 2) there is a clear benefit to your initial assistance, in that it makes the representation possible. Like I said, it’s not feasible to draw up a retainer agreement without first being privy to the specifics of the case. To sign a representation contract FIRST and get information about the matter being represented SECOND is doing things backward.
Loren wrote:
— (1) Let’s first consider the meaning of the noun intermediary.
According to the following link to the Merriam-Webster definition of the noun intermediary, the word is defined as:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intermediary
First, it is important to note that Lucas did not use the word intermediary in his first draft of the “Pro Bono Legal Services Retainer Agreement”.
I assume what Lucas means, is that I would just receive COPIES of the information freely passing back and forth between you two guys. I would NOT, for example, receive some document package from Lucas and then have to RELAY this document package to you.
Thus, I believe from your statement, that you may be incorrect in what role you think Lucas was requesting for me.
That being said, I REPEAT:
— (2) Lucas has on very rare occasions been a bit misguided and impractical on his requests, as have we all. LOL
@ Loren:
I suggest that we allow Lucas to consider what you have stated above and then respond to you via PRIVATE EMAIL, with no copy to me.
I’m reasonably confident that you two can work out together some sort of mutually agreeable Retainer Agreement.
Bruce wrote:
And if he would prefer to merely copy you on the email he sends me with the extradition paperwork, that would also be acceptable too. That would spare you from having to relay anything; as you say, you would merely receive copies of the extradition documentation.
Lucas can send the documentation to me only, to the both of us simultaneously, or to you to relay to me. I don’t care which. But he needs to send it to at least one of us, and soon, and I don’t understand why scanning and emailing basic documentation should be an obstacle. It’s irresponsible to execute a representation agreement without the client disclosing the matter being represented. Especially in this case, where Lucas has already said the matter is time-sensitive.
I don’t think the involvement of an intermediary necessarily implies an adversarial relationship between parties. An intermediary may be anyone who acts as a conduit between trading parties for the transference of goods, services, or information. That said it seems unnecessary in this case and if it is necessary then the client probably has the wrong attorney and vice versa.
Lucas’ proposed retainer agreement is just bizarre. Why would he tie his attorney’s hands behind his back and prevent him from contacting the US government in an extradition situation? Why it is almost as if Lucas had something to hide or wasn’t really concerned about the extradition at all.
Well things are becoming clearer as time goes by. Lucas was confused on this extradition thing. It wasn’t Kenya who is after his ass. It is the state of Iowa. That explains why he doesn’t want any contact with the US. I am sure Loren can get PHV admission in Iowa, Lucas. You better start being a little more forthcoming though if you want him to work with you.
PS, the photo is terrible. Too bad they wouldn’t they let you wear the cap. I suspect this complicates that retainer agreement a bit.
http://www.cedar-rapids.org/government/departments/police/Documents/CEDAR%20RAPIDS%20MOST%20WANTED%20WEB%20SITE%20VERSION.pdf
I don’t mean to dominate the discussion here but I thought the information was very relevant and needed to be available to Mr. Collins who has volunteered his very valuable services to Lucas at no cost. Mr. Collins deserves to have every bit of information pertinent to the case before he signs on to represent Lucas. I am sure Bruce will agree.
Come on Bruce and Lucas. Isn’t this extremely relevant information? You have both disappeared from the discussion on your own blog.
Ok, no one else will point this out but Lucas Smith’s mysterious and completely undocumented Kenyan extradition claim showed up a mere two days after Iowa named him a most wanted fugitive. Could Bruce or Lucas elucidate a bit on that? The coincidence is interesting. Bruce, how do you feel about sending Smith money to fight the supposed Kenyan extradition now? I know a fine attorney in Georgia you might want to contact.
It appears that I have a warrant for my arrest in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Viewing online records at the official “Iowa Courts Online” website it appears that the warrant was issued on July 15, 2o13.
I missed payments of restitution. The bond is $2000 US Dollars…..not exactly something that they extradite a person for when they are outside of the United States (and often times in the United States if you are outside of the state or sometimes the region of the country, e.g., midwest).
Furthermore, it is not a felony (even though its lists it that on the police wanted list). I plead guilty (2012) to a misdemeanor which was originally a felony. I sentenced to a few days and restitution and self-probation. The criminal case is from 2010 and the case well documented online, by myself, at scribd.com:
State of Iowa vs Lucas Daniel Smith. FECR 90875. – http://www.scribd.com/collections/3256056/State-of-Iowa-vs-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-FECR-90875
Regarding the “Most Wanted” thing, I don’t know. I didn’t even know Cedar Rapids had such a thing. I looked at the entire list (its more than just me and other guy) and there is a guy on there for failing to show up to court for public intoxication (i.e., drinking in public)….pretty serious stuff (being sarcastic).
Here is a screen shot of the probation violation, warrant and bond (btw, I was outside of the United States when the warrant was issued):
Lucas Daniel Smith wrote:
So the bond is $2000 and restitution is $3000. That’s $5000. If only there was some sucker who hated Obama and had $5000….
Smith is being omissive: He may have pleaded to third degree theft and been placed on probation, but he fails to explain the additional IWOA (interfering with official acts, aka resisting arrest) charge.
bob wrote:
I think that may have been entered in error. In the last hour I’ve been through the Iowa Courts Online several times and I can’t find anything regarding that.
Lucas Daniel Smith wrote:
You’ve been batting zero so far, Smith. Chances are you’re wrong on this too.
Andrew Vrba, PmG wrote:
Note how Smith says he couldn’t find anything on Iowa’s site. And note how Smith didn’t say, “I have never been convicted of IWOA.”
bob wrote:
And by birther logic, that’s the same as an admission of guilt.
Terrific news! There is no extradition!
Loren sure worked miracles! Now Lucas can send the money back to Steadman and return to Iowa as a patriotic and free American to take care of that little misunderstanding in Cedar Rapids. What a glorious day!