Memorandum from Menefee to Co-Counsel

Correspondence
April 15, 1985

Cite this item
Memorandum from Menefee to Co-Counsel preview

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Major v. Treen Hardbacks. Memorandum from Menefee to Co-Counsel, 1985. e7445849-ca03-ef11-a1fd-6045bddc4804. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/db2a7174-7cd3-4a92-b784-eb8436878bb6/memorandum-from-menefee-to-co-counsel. Accessed November 05, 2025.

    Copied!

    BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

405 VAN ANTWERP BUILDING 

Pp. DO. BOX 1051 

MOBILE, ALABAMA 36633 

JAMES U. BLACKSHER ; April 15 ’ 1985 TELEPHONE 
LARRY T. MENEFEE (205) 433-2000 
GREGORY B. STEIN M 0 R A N D U M 
WANDA J. COCHRAN — 

All Co-Counsel 

Larry T. Menefee 

Major v. Treen   

1 Jadl, | !, 1 oJ. x Y. 1 L) 1 1) 
weeded *% ek 

Enclosed are various documents which I have recently 

received and need some or all of your attention. 

1. The interrogatories received March 25, 1985. 
  

I need the New Orleans attorneys to look at question number 1. 

I plan to answer along the following lines: 

Mr. Menefee has, within the last years charged 
rates that ranged from 0 to $120 per hour on a non- 
contingent basis. Two years ago Mr. Menefee billed 
as low as $90 per hour for litigation and $75 per hour 
for non-litigation matters. Currently, within the 

last nine months, the litigation is billed at 
$120 per hour and in-office consultation is at $90 

per hour. Any further responses are objected to as being 
oppressive, untimely, not likely to lead to the 
discoverability of admissable evidence and violates 
confidential relations. 

I would particularly urge you to think of criminal or 

domestic relation cases which were non-contingent fees and 

produced high effective hourly rates.  



TO: Co-Counsel 
BE: Major v. Treen 
Page Two 
  

2. Please also look at interrogatory number 2. I 

believe a correct answer would be as follows: 

As to all the attorneys except Mr. Quigley, the 
answer to the first question is no. Mr. Quigley was 
paid $550.00 in fees but it was not "guaranteed". 
The answer for all of the attorneys for the second 
question is no. 

I will handle the answer for the rest of the interrogatories 

in that set. 

3. Next is a set of interrogatories and request for 

production which we received today. I will, at the appropriate 

time, interpose an objection that they are untimely, burdensome 

and oppressive. 

4. 1 enclose a copy of the defendants' supplemental 

answer to interrogatories and in particular ask Steve, Stan 

and Lani to look over those. 

LTM: nwp

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.