|
Paula Jones vs. President Clinton
Letters reveal Jones' motives in case
(June 12) -- Paula Jones was driven by apparently irrational desire for a public apology from President Clinton and rejected a settlement that would have cleared her name, according to letters from her former lawyers.
The letters were written by Jones' previous lawyers, Washington attorney Joseph Cammarata and Virginia attorney Gilbert K. Davis, in August of last year and were unsealed at their request by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock earlier this week.
[ text of first letter | text of second letter | text of proposed settlement ]
They paint a portrait of two attorneys clearly frustrated with a stubborn client. In the first letter, dated August 19, 1997, Cammarata and Davis urged Jones repeatedly to accept a proposed settlement deal negotiated with lawyers for President Clinton.
"We believe it is the best we can ever obtain, and that delay in acceptance will be very harmful to your interests," they wrote. "It is a complete victory for the interests you seek which are the redemption of your character and reputation."
Cammarata and Davis pointed out to Jones and her husband Stephen that to go forward with a trial would significantly reduce her odds of winning the case and maintain that she would never win a sum of money nearly as substantial as the $700,000 offered in the proposed settlement.
They suggested that her motive in continuing the case shifted, as indicated by her repeated demands for an unambiguous apology from Clinton.
"Your focus has thus changed from proving that you are a good person, to proving Clinton is a bad person," they write. "That was never before your objective in filing suit."
In fact, they argued to Jones, her reputation would be best served by accepting a settlement with language to the effect that Jones never engaged in "improper or sexual conduct" during the alleged incident between her and Clinton in a Little Rock hotel room in 1991. The pre-trial settlement, they maintained, combined with the large cash settlement, would have given the impression that Clinton "looks like he has a great deal to lose."
But going to trial, they told her, would demolish any chance of ever obtaining an apology from Clinton.
"He will never give a written apology. He will deny that it happened in Court. You cannot get a written apology from the court or jury," they told her.
"The money and language fully redeems your reputation for character and truthfulness, and will be seen by most people as doing so," they wrote to Jones. "The favorable perception of you by the public to this settlement will be overwhelming."
They also argued that Jones' ability to profit from the case -- most notably the potential sale of her then-sealed affidavit describing her version of events -- would be lost if the case went forward.
Cammarata and Davis pointed out repeatedly to Jones that she was in serious debt to them for almost $780,000 in legal fees and expenses. They even offered her a revised agreement by which they would each receive one-third of the $700,000 settlement, leaving her with about $220,000. Under no other option, they insisted, would she be able to retain as much money.
"Those hard and fast positions will not pay for your children's college and make your life more comfortable," they said.
There was even a footnote in which they reminded her that she is behind in payments to them from her legal fund: "We would appreciate your sending a check at your earliest convenience."
The two have an $800,000 lien filed at the Little Rock federal court for their unpaid bills from the case. These letters were unsealed as part of their legal fight to place a marker for any eventual money Jones might win.
Cammarata and Davis were almost painstakingly gracious in their second letter to Jones, written on August 29, 1997, as they told her of their forthcoming withdrawal from the case. They formally withdrew on September 9, eleven days later.
Jones then hired Dallas attorney Donovan Campbell, Jr. and his staff to pick up the case where Cammarata and Davis left off. They filed a modified complaint in December of last year, dropping several charges and asking for less money. That suit was dismissed on April 1 and Jones is appealing to the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis.
While the letters will not likely have any direct legal bearing on her appeal, it does lend additional credence to Judge Wright's April 1 summary judgment motion. Wright's lengthy opinion detailed how the legal foundation of Jones' case had crumbled beneath her.
In the August 29 letter, Cammarata and Davis explained that their ethical obligations required them to pursue any possible settlement for her, and her refusal to accept placed them in a bind.
"We cannot ethically pursue expensive, time-consuming litigation where a settlement now would achieve every legitimate goal, and where continued litigation would be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as primarily a matter of political hatred or spite," they wrote.
"Chasing after a lesser victory is folly in light of the fees and expenses you personally will have to pay."
Even as they were dumping Jones as a client, they offered to keep quiet about the break-up ("Our only public statement...will be that it was for reasons that we will not disclose which have nothing to do with the legal merits of your case") and cautioned her that her insistence to continue the suit would backfire. Their reasons for withdrawing from the case could be leaked by others, they insisted, and her opponents would certainly paint a "perception of greed and hatred" about her.
Even in their parting words to Jones, the two are polite, giving the impression that their greatest regret was that Jones refused to accept a winning truce in favor of waging a losing battle.
"We want you to know that we have enjoyed representing you," they tell her. "It has been an honor to represent someone we believed embodied the American spirit."
-Jon Bonné
| 
