You are on page 1of 2

Douglas Warr Nicholson Attorney Ellensburg - Can you - Should you ever trust such a lawyer?

After Doug had represented me for years below Doug urged me what to forego my instructions and follow his advice as to what to do in answer to instructions I had sent him:

Re: Confirmation of Settlement Instructions


From: Doug Nicholson (dnicholson@eburglaw.com) Sent: Thu 9/29/05 8:11 AM To: Louis Leclezio (leclezio@hotmail.com)

Dear Louis, I spent a sleepness night worrying about the consequences of this most unfortunate set of circumstances. I am asking you to please reconsider your position, and sign the Settlement Agreement with the District. The agreement between you and Michael is completely separate and distinct. We have come too far, and worked to hard, to bring the District in line only to lose now. The Settlement Agreement is a great deal, better than what we could expect at trial. Mallove convinced the District to sign because he was not ready for trial, and he was extremely worried about the documents we had for exhibits. (My comment:Nicholson had tricked Mallove to believe that we had documents we actually did not have in due form) Once he learns that you will not sign the agreement, the District is off the hook. We will not get another trial date for several months. Meanwhile, Mallove will have time to force us to turn over all of our exhibits, to depose Kloss and Moffett, and to better prepare our case. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater by not signing the agreement with the District. Yours truly,

When things got too hot for him - Doug claimed he was never my lawyer! Is that why Douglas Nicholson had to change law firms recently!!! Someone as unethical as Douglas Warr Nicholson should be disbarred.

RE: Final Revised Draft I referred to earlier


From: dnicholson@eburglaw.com Sent: Thu 9/25/08 9:53 AM To: 'Louis Leclezio' (leclezio@hotmail.com); 'Jim McBride' (mcbride@julin-mcbridelaw.com); 'Brian Dorsey'

Cc:

(dorsey@julin-mcbridelaw.com); kbailes@eburglaw.com 'Michael L Darland' (michael@southernchilexp.com)

Gentlemen: There are several statements in Mr. Leclezios proposed letter regarding my involvement in this matter that are inaccurate and need to be corrected. First, I was not, and am not, his attorney in the litigation with SPUD. (My Comment: If that were so - What right did Doug have to instruct me what to do? Moreover, when Douglas Warr Nicholson was not making full disclosures to me at the time!) On the contrary, I was brought in for the sole purpose of representing the Darlands. Second, I did not put untold pressure on Mr. Leclezio to sign the settlement agreement with SPUD, nor did I ever guarantee that there was no way Mr. Leclezio could lose his investment, or that I would testify in Court if need be as to the additional verbal guarantees [by] Darland.(But then reading Doug's mail dated 9/29/05 above - Should anyone wonder if being sneaky and dishonest is Doug's way of practicing law!) Not only would this be a conflict of interest, (My Comment: We will let the WSBA and King County Court decide how many conflicts of interest you brazely engaged in while preferring one client over the other) but I have no knowledge of any verbal guarantees. In fact, I was not involved in the discussions between Mssrs. Darland and Leclezio that culminated in their various agreements. I will also point out the present dispute between Mssrs. Darland and Leclezio places both Brian Dorsey and me in a conflict of interest which precludes either of us from getting involved; accordingly, both Mssrs. Darland and Leclezio need to get new and separate counsel to handle this matter. This conflict aside, I will offer the following comments and suggestions. At this point, WSDOT is refusing to allow the 20 easement to be expanded to 60, which is necessary in order to utilize the water and sewer hook-ups available from SPUD. It is SPUDs position that it does not have the authority to condemn a 60 access easement; thus, although SPUD could run the water and sewer lines under the 20 easement, this would be of no benefit the Leclezio/Darland, since the lack of a 60 easement would preclude development of the property to utilize the hook-ups that have been granted. As such, it makes no economic sense to pay to run utility lines to the property. Given these facts, it makes sense to sell the property if the right price can be obtained - which I understand Mr. Darland is attempting to do - rather than pursuing further litigation that would be extremely costly and potentially unavailing. However, if Mr. Leclezio sends the letter as he has stated he intends to do, this could potentially undermine any sale, as well as any other future options available to the parties. Subject to the Darlands approval, therefore, it would seem to make sense to allow a sale of the property to go forward, assuming a buyer exists and the price is right, and have Darlands deposit 34% of the proceeds into an escrow account that cannot be accessed until such time as the Darlands and Mr. Leclezio resolve their dispute, whether by litigation or settlement. I believe this proposal addresses Mr. Leclezios concern that his claimed interest in the property be protected, while at the same time ensuring that the best return on the property be realized. In my opinion, the alternative could lead to costly litigation with third parties that would prevent a resolution of the disposition of the property for years; and any resolution of the present dispute between Mr. Darland and Mr. Leclezio would probably not be resolved until sometime thereafter. This proposal would eliminate all interim steps and delays, leaving only the resolution of the Darland/Leclezio dispute. Very truly yours, Doug