The legal mesh ensnaring embattled US celebrity Anna Nicole Smith has acquired another knot – she is now being sued for unpaid legal fees by the first lawyers in the country to represent her.
But Ms. Smith’s current lawyer – who has always been authorized to accept service of legal documents on her behalf – says she may not pay.
He also says he has yet to receive any of the documents filed against his client by her former legal representatives, despite those documents being made public.
None of the documents, including a writ of claim, an affidavit and the attending order and a summons was served on either Ms. Smith or her legal representatives before being made public, according to Wayne Munroe.
Mr. Munroe responded to claims made by Ms. Smith’s former lawyers that she has an aversion to paying her bills, saying that media reports alerted him to the legal action Callenders and Co. has taken against their former client.
"It might appear funny, but that’s the reality of it – a lot of things with regard to this matter…we discover with the aid of the press. Sometimes the first time I know of something having happened – and a lot of matters tend to happen ex parte – is when a member of the press calls me for a comment," Mr. Munroe told the Journal.
"But be that as it may, the circumstances [being what they are], as I say we would be very grateful to see a copy of any pleadings filed against our client and any order obtained, and any affidavit used to obtain that order."
The action stems from what Callenders and Co. claim are unpaid legal fees. Mr. Munroe does not question that the firm is owed money for legal services rendered to Ms. Smith, but he pointed out that the bills presented for payment were not itemized.
Asked whether Ms. Smith would pay the Callenders’ bill, Mr. Munroe explained that as far as they are concerned, there are a number of steps to be completed before that can happen.
"First they’d render [the itemized bill]. In the correspondence…Ms. Marshall [Anna Nicole Smith] claims to have a claim against Callenders and Co. for breach of attorney-client privilege and breach of duty," Mr. Munroe explained.
"[I wrote a letter in which I] request the itemized bill, and put [Callenders] on notice of that fact."
In other words, Mr. Munroe contends that the award for the claim for breach of duty will offset the cost of the legal fees.
Callenders’ junior partner Tracy Ferguson, in a December 4 letter to Mr. Munroe, said Mr. Munroe’s request that the bill be itemized was "wholly inappropriate" as he and Callenders’ senior partner Michael Scott were co-counsel to Ms. Smith.
As a result, Ms. Ferguson continued, Mr. Munroe was "well aware" of Callenders’ "extensive attendances rendered in relation to matters arising out of the death of Daniel Smith, which was our primary remit."
Mr. Munroe told the Journal that requesting an itemized bill was a matter of course.
"It’s the right of a client, when a lawyer delivers a bill, to have an itemized bill. [Such a bill] having been requested, we haven’t received one. Again we are grateful to the press for bringing things to our attention with regard to litigation upon our clients in the court," he said.
As for service of the documents on him on behalf of Ms. Smith, Mr. Munroe pointed out that the door to his office does not require "buzzing" to open.
"We’ve never received that itemized bill at our request, and I’m told that they have filed a writ, and we’re kind of anxious to see it," Mr. Munroe said. "I think my office is fairly easy to find – it’s not in a gated community and we have no bars on our doors."
He noted that the point of writing letters back and forth is to settle matters. Once a matter is taken to the courts, he said, the parties must stand back and let the courts make the decision.
"We’re supposed to approach these things not precipitously," he said. "Before you start suing people, you’re supposed to put all efforts to settle [matters]."
The first bill submitted by Callenders was for $72,282.65, apparently submitted on September 22. It requests payment for "professional services rendered by Michael Scott and Tracy Ferguson in connection with [the estate of Daniel Smith]."
Daniel Smith was the 20-year-old son of Ms. Smith, who died last September 10 in Doctors Hospital while visiting her days after she had given birth to a daughter.
Among the services set out in the first bill are various attendances at the house in counsel with [Ms. Smith] and Ben Thompson, continuous attendances at the Coroner’s Court, continuous attendance with respect to the estate of Daniel Smith, taking a statement from Howard Stern for a press release at Ms. Smith’s request, numerous telephone conferences with Mr. Stern, and attending to press releases with the media.
The bill also lists attendances and telephone conferences with Anthony McKinney (eventually co-counsel on the case) and telephone conferences with Dr. Cyril Wecht, the celebrity pathologist Callenders’ hired to do an independent autopsy of Daniel Smith’s body.
Dr. Wecht’s autopsy found that Smith died from complications due to the interaction of three drugs in his system, only one of which he was prescribed.
A Coroners’ Inquest into Smith’s death has at last been scheduled to begin on March 27, after the original date of October 23 came and went with authorities floating the idea that an inquest might not be needed.
According to an affidavit sworn by Ms. Ferguson, Callenders’ knows full well that Ms. Smith is "well able" to pay the bill she has been presented, "but that she has a total aversion to paying her bills and that she will seek to avoid paying the fees by any means that occur to her, including by sending her money in this jurisdiction abroad."
As a result, Callenders secured an order from Supreme Court Judge Stephen Isaacs that Ms. Smith not be allowed to deplete her bank accounts at Scotia bank and Ansbacher (Bahamas) below $113,217.00.
Mr. Munroe pointed out that after severing the legal relationship, Callenders partner Michael Scott said on a number of occasions that the law firm’s involvement with Ms. Smith had been very limited.
He explained.
"Every client has a right to an itemized bill. One was especially necessary here because when certain matters arose, it was being claimed that Ms. Smith wasn’t being represented by Callenders. Specifically, Mr. Scott alleged that they didn’t represent Ms. Smith in the transaction with Ben Thompson. Then it was suggested that they only represented her sparsely in the permanent residence application," Mr. Munroe said.
"I think the contention [is] that their representation really and truly was for the matters involving the inquest. Well there was a bill for a period before her son ever died, and so one would be very concerned to see what items were billed for there."
Mr. Munroe added that Ms. Smith – whose whereabouts he could not confirm – was not overly bothered that her former lawyers are suing her.
"From what I can tell, she’s amused," he said. "In terms of being overwrought by it, she isn’t. She takes it all in her stride."
