In this August 29, 1997 letter, attorneys Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata, who at that time represented Paula Jones in her sexual harassment case against President Bill Clinton, tell Jones that they must resign due to her insistence to carry on what they consider to be an unwinnable suit.

The letter, unsealed on June 10, 1998, outlines the reasons the attorneys feel compelled to leave the case and reiterates some of the key reasons why they believed Jones should settle her claim. The letter states, " 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."

In a previous letter on August 19, 1997, the attorneys clearly told Jones that she should accept a proposed settlement in the case.

JOSEPH CAMMARATA, Esquire
1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1401
Washington, D.C. 20006-1401

August 29, 1997

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Ms. Paula Jones
1 Third Place, Apt. 102
Long Beach, California 90802

Re: Jones v. Clinton et al. Dear Paula:

Serious differences of opinion have arisen between us, as your counsel, and you, regarding matters fundamental to our representation of you in your claims against Mr. Clinton and Mr. Ferguson. We believe these differences are so basic as to make it necessary for us to seek the court's permission to withdraw as your counsel as a consequence of your refusal to agree to a settlement.

You reiterated today your continuing rejection of the non- negotiable settlement proposal. Although you told us you will further think about whether to change your mind during this weekend, as your lawyers we must assume you will not change your mind, and take action based on that assumption. The time during which the proposal for your agreement is close to expiring. It is only fair for you to know now our response to your rejection of settlement. We believe that we are ethically compelled to withdraw as explained below.

We have provided you with the specific reasons why you should settle in our letter to you dated August 19, 1997, in our meeting with you and Stephen on August 22, and in Joe's telephone call with Stephen on August 24 and with you on August 25, and in several subsequent calls, including Gil's telephone conversations with Bill McMillan, Esq. with whom you asked us to communicate so as to provide you an independent opinion on settlement. Finally, today, Gil talked to you and Stephen to see if you had changed your mind and to renew our strong recommendation that you agree to the proposed settlement. You told Gil you wanted more money or better language in the agreement. Gil told you that the settlement is the best you could reasonably expect as to both terms and if you accept it you have won your case. You still rejected the settlement, but you promised to think more about it over the Labor Day weekend and to call Gil on Tuesday, a.m., E.D.T., September 2, to tell him your final decision, or to call him this weekend with a message if you have reconsidered.

Time is of the essence primarily because of the need to send the "Willey Response" to her motion to quash on Tuesday, September 2 for filing by the Wednesday deadline. This response, because of what must be said in it, once filed, will kill all deal prospects, according to our opponents. We believe them.

We have previously discussed all the reasons why the proposed settlement is great for you and is a complete victory. There is no need here to again fully restate these reasons (please reread our letter of August 19), although some highlights may help you as you think things over this weekend.

First, you are wrong that the language is bad for you. This language is absolutely necessary to include in the settlement because it satisfies your publicly stated concerns when you filed suit, and it fully redeems your reputation by the defendants' confirmation of the false allegations about you in the American Spectator. Remember, this case is about you and your reputation, and not about the conduct or reputation of Bill Clinton or Danny Ferguson. You brought this case to clear your name, not to prove that they are "bad people." Your reputation and conduct have always been the focus of this case and that is why you are the focus of the language in the settlement. You have admitted correctly that our opponents will never confess to wrongdoing. We have no need for them to do so to re-establish your reputation.

Second, there is, in our opinion, virtually no hope for such favorable settlement terms later in the litigation, after the President has sustained his damage from pretrial proceedings and discovery; when additional defense expenses have been incurred; and after the defense realizes that $175,000 of the amount sued for is out of the case.

Third, chasing after a lesser victory is folly in light of the fees and expenses you personally will have to pay pursuant to your legal services contract with us, especially since Legal Fund receipts have not met expectations. You are fortunate that you do not have to incur future fees and expenses if you settle now.

You are able now to declare a complete victory as against an expensive, minor victory or possible loss, during the course of which your reputation will suffer grievously from your opponents' contentions about you during pretrial discovery. In that regard we have learned that a former boyfriend, whom you know well, and several others, will testify about the supposed event about which we have previously told you. These matters will be brought out by Mr. Ferguson to show that you allegedly did not enjoy a good reputation, an essential element of your defamation claim against Mr. Ferguson. You put your reputation at great risk when you reject this settlement proposal.

Fourth, the Court dismissed your claims for defamation against Mr. Clinton, and for due process violations against both defendants, including false imprisonment and reputation loss. These claims are the only ones for which there is insurance. However, we determined last week that our opponents are still willing to hold open the offer temporarily, contingent upon your willingness to accept the terms as previously stated and thereafter their final review and decision. The proposal still includes a $700,000 payment. Fifth, payment to you of the $700,000 under this scenario is now more than the largest amount you could possibly obtain from Mr. Clinton at trial. The largest possible recovery at trial is now $525,000. We believe, as we have often told you, the most likely verdict would be much less than that amount. We estimated a maximum verdict of $50,000 and now likely it will be much less, if the jury gives you any judgment at all.

Sixth, another significant benefit,of the settlement is that you will not be subjected to Mr. Ferguson's efforts to show that you could not be defamed, because of an alleged scandalous sexual past that he claims is known by others. Instead, Mr. Ferguson appears willing to agree to settlement language which strongly implies that he lied to the American Spectator regarding the "girlfriend" statement.

Seventh, your reputation for truthfulness is no longer at issue in the case against Mr. Clinton, because the claim has been dismissed in which you were called a "liar," and also because the court dismissed your claim for 1iberty interest in reputation. A trial therefor cannot redeem your good name and reputation for truthfulness. Your reputation was the reason for filing this lawsuit! Since your damages against Mr. Clinton cannot include loss of that reputation, you now may only recover for emotional distress arising out of the incident itself (and any effect on your job), and for lost wages or benefits. Please note we may not be able to prove lost wages or benefits, and thus our expectation of a damage award is further reduced.

Eighth, the Court, in its Memorandum and Order of December 28, 1994, noted this "lawsuit came about in an effort to clear [your] name of allegations of sexual activity involving then-Governor Clinton." As we have told you, the proposed settlement clears your good name! Ninth, this settlement will put money into your pocket as we explained in our August 19 letter. In our opinion, you will never again be able to obtain money for yourself and your family directly from the lawsuit itself. You will also lose all possible money from the sale of the Affidavit.

In sum, we have obtained for you a proposed settlement package which is a complete victory for you, not only financially, but also with respect to your interest in redeeming your reputation and character. You could not get such a victory at trial. As lawyers, we have obtained all that we could ever obtain for you even with the most favorable trial result possible. You have rejected the settlement offer against our very strong recommendation to accept it. 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.

You have had, to date, no immediate personal financial stake in the financing of this litigation, and you may therefor have no sense of the financial risks of the litigation. We cannot continue to advance fees and expenses to achieve, at your urging, what will be a lesser victory for you, or perhaps a loss. Stephen asked, on August 22, if our recommendation to accept the settlement would be different if we were being paid on a current basis. As we told him then and previously told you in our August 19 letter, our recommendation would be the same because this settlement is an absolute victory for you.

There is no prejudice to you and your case by our withdrawal because the case is just commencing at the trial level and you can obtain other counsel to pursue it. You must notify, as will we, any other counsel, and the Legal Fund, of our lien for attorneys' fees and costs on any money received until our fees and costs are fully paid. You should begin immediately to obtain other counsel. We will fully cooperate to provide a smooth transition.

We deeply regret the necessity of seeking withdrawal. We will prepare and file a motion to withdraw with the Court on Wednesday, September 3, 1997. In the motion we will cite irreconcilable differences as the reason for withdrawal and inform the Court that if further amplification is necessary we want to provide it in chambers, and not in open court. The Court could refuse this request. Our only public statement concerning our withdrawal, if we are not required to speak in open court, will be that it was for reasons that we will not disclose which have nothing to do with the legal merits of your case, in which tie continue to have full confidence.

We must, however, caution you that the press has an intense interest in this case, and somehow confidential matters often become public. For example, our opponents could possibly, perhaps probably, allege your attorneys' withdrawal as motivated by your refusal to settle for terms which both satisfy your professed reputation interest and spare national agony of a protracted trial of the President on whom millions depend. Regardless of the facts, our opponents may portray your refusal as a money-grubbing attempt to further develop this story for profitable book rights, and portray you as inspired and under the influence of right-wing Clinton-haters. A perception of greed and hatred on your part will lose the public relations battle for your good name for which your lawyers have worked long and hard to build up.

Beyond our own frustration and disappointment about the likely consequences of refusing to settle for the great victory we have made possible, we are truly sad to be unable to persuade you to take action which would put you "on top." We fear your refusal will likely irretrievably lose for you the very reputation and good name for which we have successfully fought. We strongly recommend that you reconsider the course you are taking and agree to accept this terrific suggested settlement.

Paula, the decision whether or not to settle your claims is always your decision and your decision alone. Our withdrawal as your counsel, so many months before trial, cannot and should not pressure you to accept a settlement with which you are not satisfied, even though we believe you should be completely satisfied with the settlement terms now "on the table." If however, you do decide to accept the proposed settlement, please let us know by 12:00 noon Eastern Daylight Time, Tuesday, September 2, 1997 or earlier. If you decide to accept the settlement and we hear from you by then, we will continue to represent you through the settlement process and bring the matter to closure. If we do not hear from you by that time, we will send out the withdrawal notice to counsel for all parties and the court together with our motion to withdraw. You will be advised of the hearing date, as soon as we know it, so that you may attend the hearing to state your consent or opposition to the withdrawal. If you consent, please advise us and we will prepare a pleading which you may sign confirming your consent to our withdrawal. This may eliminate your need to attend the hearing.

If you persist in refusing the proposed settlement -- which is your absolute right -- we again urge you to immediately obtain the services of replacement counsel and to advise us of the identity, address and phone number of your new counsel.

Very truly yours,

Gilbert K. Davis

Joseph Cammarata

P.S. Paula, despite this action which we believe to be necessary, we want you to know that we have enjoyed representing you and appreciate the confidence you have shown in us. It has been an honor to represent someone we believed embodied the American spirit. We wish you the best of luck as you move forward with your case.