375+ # 0384

Just speculating but why wouldn't he? He bought it at a discount and prevented it from disappearing from the market.

 

Risk free? We may assume the BC would not have released the car and Gardner would have sued to kill the deal.

Remember, Joe himself admits his case is an up hill battle and two of the three Kleve daughters think the case is not worth their attention.

 

Kim, you asked, and I answered this already about two weeks ago.

I do not know if my explanation of the dispute impacted who received it. I can surmise that weeks after I gave my explanation TO CLARK, Bonhams misrepresented the situation and simply convinced Clark's potential buyer that the dispute from weeks earlier had been settled. There is a lawsuit in London that basically says what I am surmising.

Again, do a timeline. Post when the catalogue came out, post when Clark was in contact with Copley, and post when Bonhams issued written assurances. My info is that Copley ended contact with Clark on about April 6, 2014, thus supporting my belief that it is Bonhams' later misrepresentations (relevant litigation is settled) and omissions (Ohio BMV block) that convinced the interested buyers that all been resolved - including what I referred to weeks earlier.

I read Copley's claim. I read Bonhams reply to Copley's claim. IMHO Bonhams reply is disjointed, internally conflicting, asynchronus, contains misrepresentations, and contains omissions - it tells me that Bonhams is scrambling for a defence. IMHO the chance of Bonhams prevailing is next to nil.

Joe

*

Wily, what you say is not true. Post your evidence about WHICH case is an uphill battle, and when - 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago, etc. Post your evidence about the other two daughters not caring. I know they did care and they do care. How can you make such false statements?

BC's atty said she'd be nuts not to accept a $25M sale, while CG, if you believe the HOA, has no ownership interest - his attorney offered the April 18, 2013 Proposed Order signed consistent with his status - as my Financier.

Please be more accurate with your words.

Joe

*

 

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/billionaire-owner-of-victoria-s-secret-sues-over--18-3-million-ferrari-sale-181904287.html

 

Joe, still reading the mountain of documents that have been posted but the Gardner claim against you together with the exhibits have caught my attention.

I continue to support Karl Kleve as he was wronged and have always felt his estate should be the principal beneficiaries from this case but it appears that Kristin's sisters Katrina and Karyl have been excluded. Are they going to benefit in any way and/or did they get a share of the $5,000 and $75,000 paid to Kristi for the sale of her 90% interest in the car ?

Furthermore, and correct me if my understanding is wrong, but before you came along, Kristi Lawson had already promised a 10% commission to Dave Clark if the car was recovered and sold as I see there is an agreement between you that you would reach an agreement with Clark that would “integrate my (Kristi’s) contract with him into our Sales Agreement”.

Obvious question. How are you (or have you already) going to fulfill your promise to accommodate Dave Clark and will this impact on Kristin’s or her sisters share ?

 

This entire thread is infested with low volume (under 10 total) posters that are obviously re-registering as new and different Ferrari chat members in order to manipulate opinions... This is EPIC.

 

EPIC indeed and very apt given that OJ also got the film rights for his $5,000 !

What's also funny is that the Court transcripts and writs are peppered with references to FChat and FChat members

 

Who doesn't want to log on multiple times to spit venom and bile under multiple user names, fun for the whole family.

And some were quite fun, anyone remember that nice Italian chap. Flobert

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/142533311-post844.html

I never did pay him the 500 EURO. I wish he would come back with some more "hilarious posts".

 

What a thread this has been.

Thanks Tongascrew.

In my next few posts I will try to sort the "Top Ten" pieces of evidence to rebut claims made by opponents.

As a rebuttal to all those who think Swaters was confused about the identity of what he acquired, or that he in good faith "misidentified" as 0394AM for nine subsequent years, as the first of my "Top Ten", I offer the below 1990.03.26 letter from Garage Francorchamops to Karl Kleve (repost of F Chat p. 88, post 1751). This 1990.03.26 letter was found in Swaters' New York attorney files. It was never sent. Instead, Swaters' attorney sent a sanitized version on 1990.04.02. It is only after Kleve refused to sell 0384AM that Swaters then misidentifies it as "0394AM."

Note the differences between the unsent (unsantitized) and sent (sanitized) versions.

This is why I conclude bad faith, deliberate concealment of facts, and subsequent deception by counterfeiting from 1990 - 1999 with a phony VIN.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The first piece of evidence (post #2484) established why I conlcude that Swaters was not acting in good faith from 1990 - 1999.

As a rebuttal to all thoise who claim that Kleve settled in 1999, I offer Swaters' forensic document expert report dated 2011.02.23 as the second piece of evidence of the "Top Ten" and it establishes why I conclude the 1999 settlement effort was a sham. (Prior post of excerpts at F Chat. p31, post #617)

Kleve claimed he never signed any sale, settlement, or conveyance documents in 1999 for $625,000 and that his last offer was for $3,500,000. In 2010, Swaters hires a forensic document expert to review the authenticity of Swaters 3pp 1999 Settlement document.

Swaters's forensic document expert issued his report on 2011.02.23 and concludes that the inked in price on page one did not match the ink or ball point pressure signature from Kleve's pen when Kleve signed in Ohio on July 16, 1999, but that it DID match the ink and ball point pressure from Daniels' pen when Daniels signed in Florida on July 19, 1999. That is evidence that Daniels inked in the price after Kleve had signed.

Swaters' forensic document expert also concludes, using x-ray and microscopic analysis, that two different types of staples and staplers were used to suspiciously fasten the upper left corner of Swaters 3pp 1999 "settlement" document. The suspicious use of two staplers further supports the conclusion of alteration subsequent to Kleve's initial signing.

Finally, on page 1 of the expert report, the expert claims his query is to see if pages one and two were swapped out or changed after Kleve signed. In the expert's conclusion on page 9, the expert dodges the page 1 query and instead says "it is my opinion that the Settlement Agreement described in this report as subject document S1 shows no indication of an alteration to the document since September 2, 1999 when Phillipe Lancksweert signed the third page of S1."

All lawyers instantly know what it means when an expert does not address the query he is tasked to investigate and opine upon. That is likely why Swaters' attorney delayed sending us this damning expert report for one year and five months.

This is why I conclude, as Swaters' forensic document expert concluded, that Swaters' 1999 "settlement" documents were altered after Kleve signed. (FYI - There is a 2012.11.16 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed in Ohio court that cites additional evidence of alteration having to do with the fact that Lancksweert's affidavit admits that the $625,000 price had not even come into being on the date Kleve signed. According to Lancksweert's affidavit, the price on July 16, 1999 was $750,000.)

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here we go again and for obvious reasons, picking solely on Jacques Swaters as the only villain in piece

 

The thing all lawyers would instantly know is that this is a subject for cross-examination. Some lawyers would also know that there is sufficient uncertainty as to how the jury will resolve these factual disputes, that the parties should waive the disputes and exchange them for a sum of money with many zeroes in it.

 

The third piece of evidence I offer is a rebuttal to Swaters claim that he bought the Ohio parts per the 1999 "settlement" agreement. Swaters makes this claim from 2005 onwards. The fact is that Swaters' business partner Phillipe Lancksweert admits under oath the Ohio Parts were expressly excluded from the 1999 "settlement."

The 2005.08.03 demand is by Bruce Whitmer, Swaters' Georgia attorney (see below). It is supicious that the Swaters would engage a Gorgia attorney as opposed to an Ohio attorney.

The 2010.02.25 demand is by Jacques and Florence Swaters as part of their complaint, paragraphs 36 and 40 (see below).

The 2010.07.16 affidavit of Phillipe Lanscksweert admission that the Ohio Parts were excluded is in paragraph 5 (see below).

This is why I conclude it is deceptive for Swaters to claim he bought or owns the Ohio Parts, starting in 2005 and continuing to this date.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

+1 and there was never an acceptance by the plaintiff that the 1999 Settlement was a forgery as has been claimed and if you read the Court Transcripts you will see the strong objection to this interpretation.

 

Joe, I have just read the full Copley/Wexner claim posted on the "other site"

I am not trying to defend Bonhams but given you have confirmed that Dave Clark (Mr 10%) was showing Copley/Wexner copies of your Ohio BMV and Court documents proving there was a problem with buying at the auction, why are they claiming in their writ that the first they knew about the problem was when they happened to read Ray Lawsons (a.k.a Phatboys) one and only post on FChat on Saturday 5th July, two weeks after the auction.

It is also surprising, that Copley Motors of Massachusetts USA are asking Bonhams London for advise on how they go about registering your Ohio title in their name.

More popcorn ?

 

You will remain astray until you do a timeline and read accurately; it may be that some of the legal docs are too technical for you to grasp.

For example, read PRECISELY what Copley claims that he did not know -- the "did not know" refers to events that had not yet occurred during the time Clark communicated with Copley. Clark stopped communication with Copley before April 30, 2014, and Copley's last communication to Clark was April 30, 2014. What Bonhams WITHHELD are SEVERAL SUBSEQUENT AND SIGNIFICANT developments - for example, a few are: the Ohio BMV hold (circa May 4, 2014), our win on appeal (circa May 28, 2014), our appeal of the June 9, 2014 final judgment (circa June 20, 2014), our UK attorney warnings (multiple emails and letters), and the Zanotti claims. Bonhams represented, and gave written assurance, all was resolved - ALL, and Bonhams repeatedly claimed it could convey title when in fact they could not.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, do a timeline and read the claim more accurately. Copley is quite specific about what info Bonhams withheld, concealed, and misrepresented. At the end of the day, Copley took Bonhams at their word, and IMHO we now see that Bonhams' word was worthless and even deceptive.

There are several affidavits that tell much, much more of the story about the docs and events related to two of the proceedings that you are trying to understand - note that the affidavits do not appear on that "other site."

In a few weeks, you're gonna need much more popcorn.

Joe

*

 

Joe, as suggested I have set out a timeline of events (using the info on the other site) from your 30th April start point.

30th April 2014. Ford and Clark contact with Copley/Wexner ceases

3rd May 2014. Expiration of Fords offer of 30th April, to Florence Swaters for Dave Clark to sell the car within 30 days for $25m splitting his 10% with Bonhams and allowing him to overcome "Bonhams threats to Clarks buyers". The offer revises the HOA 50/50 split with the BC getting 41% and the OC 59% (split Ford 30/Lawson 15/Gardner 14%)

6th May 2014. Ford court deposition. Page 298 confirmation that Dave Clark was trying to sell the car to Wexner for $25m on the basis that Bonhams authority has expired. Clark used evidence (page 305) including the "transcript testimony that I the right to protect and advance my interests ", the 17th August Court order and a copy of the Ohio BMV (8/5/2012) showing Ford and Lawson as the owner.

6th May 2014. Ford court deposition. Page 307 in response to a question is Swaters was aware of Wexner interest Ford responds " I think I might have said something". When also asked if Mr Wexner would be discouraged to bid at the Bonhams Ford replied "he is not going to buy it at auction"

28th May 2014. Ford appeal to reverse the 19/8/13 order is granted

29th May 2014. Fords UK solicitors, Wilmots, send Bonhams a copy of the judgment and claims they have no authority to sell the car.

6th June 2014. Wilmots contact Bonhams stating they “do not want to pursue injunctive relief” as there is “apparently a continuing discussion about the way the proceeds will be held”

9th June 2014. Judge Nadel dismisses case A1001370 and confirms jurisdiction to London

20th June 2014. Ford /Lawson appeals the case dismissal

24th June 2014. Copley seeks Bonhams advise if they are giving a “free passage guarantee” for easy import and titling in the USA

24th June 2014. Ince (replacement Ford solicitor) letter to Bonhams “will not oppose the auction…provided the entire hammer price is placed in an Ohio escrow account”

25th June 2014. Jones Day (Bonhams solicitor) responds to Ince “our clients do not accept that Mr Ford has any possible basis on which to challenge the sale”

25th June 2014. Ince letter willing to “proceed” if one important matter can be agreed is how the proceeds are dealt with.

26th June 2014. On the eve of the auction, Ince UK and Smith on behalf of Lawson notify Bonhams that they have no authority.

26th June 2014. Zanotti claims the car to be sold is not 0384AM

27th June 2014. Mr Stu Carpenter claims oral representations were made by Bonhams and Ferrari experts that everything had been “put to bed”. Car sells to Copley/Wexner for £10,984,200 including buyers commission of £1,380,200 due to Bonhams.

5th July 2014 (Saturday). Wexner reads the Ray Lawson (a.k.a Phatboy) post (1173 page 59) on FChat and is first aware that Bonhams falsely claimed that the litigation had been settled.

7th July 2014. Zanotti claim discontinued.

8th July 2014 (Tuesday). Mischon de Reya solicitors on behalf of their client Wexner/Copley demand their money back.

8th July 2014. Stakeholder proceeds issued by Bonhams

21st July 2014. Wexner /Copley issue proceeding against Bonhams to rescind the contract and seeking damages, alleging:

1. That title cannot be registered in Ohio because “as appears probable” Ford/Lawson are unwilling to surrender their title so Wexner could suffer imprisonment even if he were to “operate” the car in Ohio
2. Fraud by Bonhams and misrepresentation through the Octaine magazine article, in that they knew there was a dispute and made false statements with the objective of earning substantial fees.

1st October 2014. Bonhams files a defense against the Copley/Wexner claim

17th October 2014. Bonhams issue proceedings against Ford/Lawson

3rd November 2014. Judge Martin Ohio, orders arbitration between Ford and Gardner before 1st June 2015.

?? November 2014. Ford claiming 100% of the proceeds and counter claiming against Lawson

 

I wonder who bought the diaries of Jaques Swaters:

Automobilia Auktion Ladenburg

Maybe there was some useful information in it.

 

K L E V E.
Not Swaters.

Best Regards,
Dave

 

Documents ?

Documents can be very revealing when viewed. The same documents can be very deceptive when viewed in their incomplete form. This is the case of any one-sided plea.

It has recently been discovered that one of a 3 page fax transmission has been omitted from a posting on the F-chat pages. That posting number would be #2431 on page 122.

The document in question is the remaining page of an offer made to Karl Kleve in 1999 to fulfill the complete value of his insanely high 250,000 valuation made to the FBI in 1989.

Kleve stated in one of many interviews he received 45000 of the 50,000 paid for the remains of the Ferrari now know as #0384. That figure, along with the offer of 200,000.00 was equal to the amount Kleve stated his partially dismantled Hulk was worth.

It is often surprising how these stories gain amendments and credence when another surprise document surfaces or when a picture appears that does not align with the already written facts, as seen in print.

I often wonder what other surprises lurk in the coming days or months that will shed light on what really happened in reference to the history of this never-ending story.


Its sort of like ‘Stretch Armstrong’, you can twist and turn him, stretch him, distort him and then claim “you see… he’s just the same as he was…. only better!”

This is the story of #0384, it has been twisted, contorted, stretched, and distorted.



Question: Will someone ‘PLEASE’ post some cool pictures of the junked out #0384 in Ohio?

I did see the latest picture of Kleve in his pajamas with a sport coat over it from the Ohio paper. The man was truly a slave to fashion.

Oh, please also post pictures of the WWII B-25 bomber that thieves took apart and sold for scrap across the border into Kentucky. Who has the nose cone? Is it still in Cheviot, Ohio?

Who was it that started the rumor that the Police stopped traffic so the scrapped aluminum B-25 Bomber could be loaded onto pick-up trucks? That was really funny!
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

No.
I have discussed, for 6 years in this thread, my involvement with the recovery efforts (6 weeks beginning in August 1990) the year after the theft (1989).
You have belonged to Fchat for 4 1/2 years, yet you waited until 9/1/13 to post anything.

As a reminder, 0384AM was a stolen car from January 1989 until last summer (2013).
On 8/19/13 its status as a stolen car was eclipsed by its newfound status as a piñata of cash for all to try and seize, once the HOA had been agreed to by the BC and OC's respectively.

On 9/1/13 your posts begin. 90% of which are in this thread.
So you have no financial stake. Your interest is solely to contribute.
Great.
Feel free to introduce yourself and share what it is that brings you to the conversation at this particular point in time, and let F-chat members who are mature enough to make their own assessment, make it.
Welcome aboard Mr. (not sure what we should call you).

Wow. Please tell me you haven't ruled out trial attorney or politician as potential careers. You have such a way with words...
I also like how you drafted all of Fchat with the word 'us'. Now everyone on this site believes you and not me. I'm in trouble.

Clearly, you never, ever met Karl Kleve. Your question goes to state of mind of the man in question. Please re-read the thread from Page 1.
You will find the answers you seek, implied but not specifically stated.

WK,WC (who knows, who cares). These questions are for lawyers and are not something any reasonable person would ever expect me* (*please see Page 1, Post 12 of this thread, here: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/138135184-post12.html) to know.
I'm not trying to be a hostile witness, so I'll happily give you my response to your query. In 1990 I was aware that Gerald Roush and the FBI were already involved. In the world of stolen vintage Ferraris, that puts the matter to rest for everyone but the Esquires.

Really? This is kind of a jailhouse lawyer question (for those reading this is an US colloquialism. Jailhouse lawyers don't represent convicts- jailhouse lawyers are convicts who have read law books in the prison library).
I like how you honored 0384AM ('the HULK') with the same pedestal you've reserved for your screen name: ALL CAPS.
You're right to do so. As per international convention, THE CHASSIS IS THE CAR. (Hope you don't mind I borrowed your technique there).
To clarify, http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143489732-post2372.html
And now for Monsieur's answer,
Again. Speaks to who the man was.
Further, let's do an F-chat survey of owners of long-held assets and their coverage. I promise the answers may surprise you.

Another who knows, who cares question. Doesn't really cut to the core of the matter at hand. Does qualify as inane trivia related to the recovery efforts.
Here's some more;
What color were the Ford Econoline vans the Hamilton County Sheriff's Deputies drove when they escorted the prisoners to 'The Lot' where I was working that aspect of the recovery (0384AM recovery lot)?
What did the prisoners have for lunch at their temporary home-Hamilton County Justice Center (314 E. 9th St, Cin, OH)- the day I was at the city dump searching a dumpster they filled to see if any 0384AM parts were pitched?

No idea. Although I did have the opportunity to meet Fred Leydorf and Dave Cummins in the same time period, on a different matter. So, you know, cool points.

Finally, a question that has something to do with the recovery.
I would love to answer this but you're going to have to be a lot more specific with the question.

Ah! A smoking gun! (Sarcasm)
I knew Chuck Hassan. I knew E.P. Lunken
(Please see: Charles R Hassan, Edmund P Lunken, James Johnston, Howard Hively; Cincinnati Gang; Cincinnati Ferrari sports car privateers, 1950's).
I knew Karl for the last dozen or so years of his life.
Is your contention (fairy tale alert) that Howard Hively never conveyed the car to him?
You want answers? You want the truth?
Okay. I'm going to give you a break for a second. There are things I wanted to post on this thread in August of 2008 (Page 1, Post 12) that I never have and never will. All I can say is this, if you were from there, and if you were involved- you'd understand. For anyone else, you have to buy me lunch in new york city with the tape recorder off.
And I don't even know who you are.

It's on Instagram and Pinterest. Oh wait. It was 1990. Never mind.
What are you even talking about? If I knew who you were I would be happy to send references. One's a UK-based entrepreneur, very well-known vintage racer, who was involved.
While we're on the subject, I will pay $25 USD to anyone who can furnish a high quality copy of either of the 35MM stills I took of 6'4" Bill Victor standing atop the (2) Bugatti NOS T41/rail car engines we found on the lot. I miss that guy and that is a great memory.

Honestly, for these, I'm not even going to bother. Hope you can live with that.

The allegations are true. The Ferrari was stolen.
If you want, you can Edit this post so that your all caps of THIS WEEKEND is in bold. Just use the FAQ in the Search tab.
Great.
I'll tell you who has heard of me- Karl Kleve. I don't know if I ever met Kristi Kleve (Lawson) back then. I did have dinner with her cousin a few times when I was last in town. There's also a third party who was a part of the recovery (aside from the recovery team) for whom, no mention has ever been made on this site. I've never spoken of this person and I don't have pictures, but they do exist! They know me.

Rob Lay has built a great site that is the modern digital repository for so much of the world of Ferrari. We are lucky to have it. If your defendant would like to become acquainted with people, he could join here and use his name. He could even subscribe to support Mr. Lay's efforts. It's quite affordable.
If your defendant hasn't even heard of Marcel Massini, (see Page 1 of this thread), I would suggest that he may be of questionable value in a deposition related to anything vintage Ferrari.

This is the part of your response that's really confusing. There are some questions and statements that seem to be made in earnest and then we have all of this 'lawyering up' hearsay that's consistent with statements that a thief or a fence (or their counsel) would make- at any rate- someone with an agenda, rather than that of someone who was strictly a historian on a fact-finding mission.

I thank, in advance, the indulgence of Mr. L Wayne Ausbrooks and the Fchat mods along with Mr. Rob Lay and all the Fchatters who pulled their eyes all the way through this post.

I was there. I was involved. My identity and the nature of my involvement is a matter of public record, thanks to Ferrarichat.
The theft of 0384AM and the subsequent deceit, treachery, and willful violation of laws that kept Mr. Kleve from ever recovering his property is a terrible shame and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
I have always felt a duty of honor to Karl Kleve to speak about what I know.
You can't always catch the thieves or right the wrongs but there's still the obligation to speak the truth if you know it.

Mr. SEESPOTRUN, if you find me to be combative in this response please know it isn't personal. This thread has been assailed since the summer of 2013 coinciding in time with the appearance of one notorious guest, and the possibility of that great piñata of cash finally spilling out of 0384AM.
If you are who you say you are (please note for the record, you haven't actually said), if you are not swinging a stick at the cash piñata, and if your mission is to correct the 'Disney Tale' that you regard the story of 0384AM to be, I'll suggest that the first steps would be to identify yourself and then to put your cards on the table.
Merely referring to conspiracy theories and obliquely assailing facts and persons central to the narrative will not get you there.
It will however, earn you a seat in infamy on Fchat, at the table with Andales and all of our ghost friends who never cared enough to let us really get to know them.

In closing, Mr. SEESPOTRUN, I'll leave you with a request and a question.
The request: Please don't call me Sir. I work for a living.
The question: What color's the boat house at Hereford?

With Best Regards,
Dave Powers

 

Amazing post mr. powers. But I wouldn't hold your breath while waiting for an intelligent reply by seesportrun (low caps LOL) because I am certain he is only interested in his piñata 0384AM (loved that analogy). If he does reply it will be the same statement, yet again....... Hell maybe it is part of his internal narrative. You know repeat after me "I didn't steal #0384AM" over and over and you will believe it too....... To part answer one of the posters questions, the people that have posted in this thread that know an enormous amount about early F-cars include Pass, Napolis, MarcelM, Shaugnnessy, VIZSLA & BryanP, that's just in the first 5 pages.........

 

While on the subject of deception, why is the date on the fax transmission 30th July 1999 when the date of the letter on the third page of the "transmission" is 1st September 1999 ?

The additional page is only interesting in that it shows that others (Mr Anderson) were trying to buy Kleve's interest at the time and their valuation. However, the correspondence was after Kleve/Daniels had already signed the 1999 settlement agreement.

 

Note the address of Bruce Morris, Guy Anderson's attorney from 1989 and 1999.

Note the address of Bruce Whitmer, Jacques Swaters attorney from 2005.

IMHO its very shady - GA from GA -- having such coincidences.

Do the math; note also that the same math applied to Kruch's and Swaters' attorney from 1990.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

there shouldn't be too much read into the addresses...those addresses represent high rise ( suite 2540 = 25th floor ) high density premium office space, the equivalent of finding law offices having an address on main street in any small city... the rent to pay for space, however, would be at the top of what the market will bear... typical front for law offices that assume that paying big money for space equates with a successful law firm as a draw for clients. It could be a mail drop or office space rented by the hour for those needing image. Either way the client's fee needs to cover the rent first... :=)