Journal Entry: Dana McIntyre-03/11/2024

Journal Entry

 A motion I filed Pro Se to have my surrender date extended to June 19, 2024, was denied. This was a precursor to filing the motion to serve my sentence in home confinement for medical reasons. The BOP medical policy clearly states the type of medical procedures I require and have scheduled cannot be done by them but the Judge went along with the Government’s objection. My attorney never provided the court with an argument to serve my sentence in home confinement or notify the court of my medical issues.  Additionally, my attorney was essentially incapacitated 5 weeks before my trial date by his own admission.  This provided the grounds for a 2255 sentence modification motion which I will be filing this coming week.   It is really sad that even high priced attorneys don’t do their job and outright lie in order to extort fees for work they did not do.   Below is a demand letter for the return of $40,000 over charged for a trial that never happened.   The lack of professional conduct is nothing short of shocking.   

Petitioner Dana McIntyre

Petition is Support of Fee Dispute against Attorney R. Bradford Bailey

Petitioner Dana McIntyre submits that he is owed substantial money returned in a fee dispute against Attorney R. Bradford Bailey. 

Mr. McIntyre entered into a contract for legal representation with Attorney Bailey.  The contract outlined a flat fee tiered payment schedule. 

The scope of representation included legal representation on charges of wire fraud and money laundering that were pending in the US District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 

 The contract including the fee agreement is included in this petition for relief.

The contract and fee schedule clearly outline when payments are due and what the payments cover in terms of work/representation performed.

In the instant case the matter was settled by plea agreement through good faith plea negotiations. 

The flat fee tiered contract is clear that if the matter is settled by plea agreement prior to trial the flat fee for such services and representation is $75,000.

The total amount paid to Attorney Bailey was $115,000. In this case additional expenses were not incurred such as a forensic accountant or any special investigator or expert witness fees.   

 The fee of $115,000 was paid with a $30,000 deposit and a monthly payment to comply with the $5,000 per month installments agreed too.  Lump sum payments at certain milestones as outlined in the contract related to a trial were not followed while Attorney Bailey continued to accept the monthly $5,000 payments until a plea agreement was finalized.  

The monthly payments continued for several months because there were delays from both parties, but the delays did not increase the amount of work required to finalize the plea agreement nor is there anything in the flat fee agreement that indicates if it takes additional time to finalize a plea agreement that it changes the flat fee of $75,000. 

Furthermore, Attorney Bailey stated that he had been preparing for trial and is entitled to compensation for that part of the contract even though a plea agreement was reached and that a trial never took place.  On April 3, 2024, about 4 weeks before the scheduled trial date, Attorney Bailey held a client Zoom meeting and started that meeting off by asking “So what do you have for us” as a legal defense had yet to be established.  There was never a clear indication or evidence presented that trial preparation was taking place.  I was asked by Attorney Bailey from time to time to reaffirm my intentions of moving forward with a trial and those conversations or emails ended with no trial discussion or direction.  At the April 3, 2023, meeting the conclusion was to present an intoxication defense and I would take the stand in my own defense.  It became clear that very little time went into actual trial preparation.  A few days later I was contacted by Attorney Bailey who told me it was his obligation to negotiate a plea offer with the AUSA with my permission.  He came back with a plea offer and informed me he could not argue for a sentence of less than 12 months as part of the plea agreement and that he is bound by the terms. 

  April 13, 2023, I met Attorney Bailey and his associate Attorney Adamo Lanzer in the Boston Federal Court house cafeteria prior to appearing before the court to plead guilty as agreed in the plea deal.  Before entering the court Attorney Bailey presented a document and stated this document just says that you overpaid me according to our agreement and that I’m entitled to this money because you wanted to go to trial, and we have been preparing for one.  The timing was opportunistic, unethical, and distasteful. The petitioner is in Federal court experiencing a traumatic life altering event, vulnerable and in shock. I signed the document without being provided the time to review its content details and without being provided with a copy.

 Attorney Bailey continued to gloat to his associate about how he loves my signature and how it just loops around.  He seemed very happy, and I felt uncomfortable.  To the best of my knowledge, Attorney Bailey has never sent or provided the petitioner with a copy of the document as of this petition date.   

 On June 20, 2023, Attorney Bailey sent an email to apologize that he did not know he received my Pre-Sentencing report two weeks prior that was due on this date.

 In that email he admits in his own words that he was “essentially incapacitated” for the 5 weeks leading up to his surgery, which occurred a few days before the scheduled trial date of May 1, 2023.  This admission, along with not ever showing or discussing what he was doing to “prepare for trial” is in direct conflict with the assertion and claim of preparing for a trial and its associated costs.   (exhibit)

In the instant case, the petitioner satisfied his payment requirement and complied with the plea negotiations in good faith resulting in a satisfactory plea agreement. 

The contract is clear that if the matter is settled by plea agreement the flat fee is $75,000.

In this case, Attorney Bailey decided to keep the over payment for himself, violating the terms of his flat fee agreement contract.  The overpayment was the result of the petitioner’s good faith efforts in complying with the installment payment plan of $5,000 per month. 

The overpayment of $40,000 should be promptly repaid to the petitioner Dana McIntyre.  Attorney Bailey should not be unjustly enriched simply because payments continued until a plea agreement was finalized.  It is not the fault of the petitioner that Attorney Bailey refused to abide by the terms of the contract.  

Delays in getting paperwork processed and court dates are common in this field and Attorney Bailey should not be unjustly enriched by $40,000 due to a common occurrence.  Further, an Attorney can’t alter the terms of the contract after the fact. 

It is particularly dubious and grossly unethical when a fee agreement change is presented in such a manner that it was in this case. 

Attorney Baileys actions are a clear violation of accepted practices and ethics outlined by the American Bar Association and enforced by the State Board of Bar Overseers.

Therefore, for good cause shown and in accordance with the terms of the contract signed by both parties, the Petitioner, Dana McIntyre demands the return of his overpayment of $40,000 immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

Dana McIntyre