AFFIDAVIT OF BROOKE CRAWFORD STATE OF TEXAS - FREEBORN

Click below to download signed PDF

Freeborn Affidavit.pdf

Download PDF • 96KB

I, Brooke Crawford, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

I. Introduction

1. I am over the age of 18 years and competent to testify to the facts stated herein.

2. This affidavit is based on my personal knowledge of the events surrounding the dispute

involving Freeborn & Peters LLP (“Freeborn”), MDFT (Mildred Drake Family Trust),

and David Drake.

3. I submit this affidavit to detail the improper conduct by Freeborn & Peters LLP,

including unauthorized actions, lack of engagement, coercion, and leveraging of legal

knowledge to entrap David Drake and affiliated parties.

II. Parties Involved

1. MDFT (Mildred Drake Family Trust) – A family trust engaged in legitimate business

and financial activities.

2. David Drake – Representative of MDFT who was wrongfully targeted by Freeborn &

Peters LLP.

3. Attorney – An individual who subcontracted legal work to Freeborn & Peters LLP

without authorization or an engagement agreement.

4. Freeborn & Peters LLP – A law firm that performed unauthorized legal work and used

coercive tactics to collect payment.

III. Timeline of Events

1. Initial Work Authorization

a. In 2020, an attorney engaged in work related to MDFT without an official

engagement letter or written authorization.

b. Without the knowledge or approval of MDFT or David Drake, an attorney

subcontracted the work to Freeborn & Peters LLP.

2. Unlawful Billing

a. MDFT received an invoice from Freeborn & Peters LLP for approximately

$500,000, despite never entering into an agreement or engagement with the

firm.

b. Following discussions to resolve the matter in good faith, David Drake agreed

to pay $250,000 to mitigate any ongoing disputes.

3. Promissory Note Execution

a. David Drake signed a promissory note for the $250,000 amount.

b. Freeborn & Peters LLP later used this note as the basis to file a lawsuit and

obtain a summary judgment against David Drake and MDFT.

4. Coercion and Threats

a. Following the judgment, Freeborn & Peters LLP began to improperly threaten

and coerce family members of MDFT into paying the outstanding balance.

IV. Legal Violations and Analysis

1. Lack of an Engagement Agreement

a. Freeborn & Peters LLP failed to obtain a written engagement letter or

agreement from MDFT or David Drake before performing any legal work.

b. Legal Precedent: Knox v. Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, 168 A.D.3d 70

(N.Y. 2019): Legal work performed without a formal engagement letter or client

consent is unenforceable.

c. Rule 1.5(b) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Lawyers must

communicate the scope of representation and fees in writing to new clients.

2. Unauthorized Subcontracting

a. An attorney, without the authority to act on behalf of MDFT, subcontracted

work to Freeborn & Peters LLP.

b. Legal Principle: An agent cannot bind a principal without express authority.

3. Coercion and Unethical Collection Practices

a. Freeborn & Peters LLP’s threats against family members of MDFT to collect an

improperly obtained judgment constitute coercion and unethical legal practices.

4. Entrapment and Misuse of Legal Knowledge

a. Freeborn & Peters LLP leveraged their legal expertise against David Drake,

knowing he was unfamiliar with the intricacies of the law.

b. This constitutes a bad faith abuse of legal process and a violation of

professional ethics.

c. Precedent: Young v. City of Providence, 404 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2005): Abuse of

process occurs when legal procedures are improperly used to achieve an ulterior motive.

V. Financial and Personal Impact

1. Financial Harm

a. The improper billing and subsequent judgment caused significant financial

harm to MDFT and David Drake.

b. Resources were diverted to address the unjust claims instead of legitimate

business activities.

2. Reputational Damage

a. Freeborn & Peters LLP’s actions tarnished the reputation of MDFT,

undermining trust with stakeholders and business partners.

3. Emotional and Personal Harm

a. The threats and coercion directed at family members caused undue emotional

distress and further disrupted the personal and professional lives of those

involved.

VI. Relief Sought

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request that the court and relevant authorities consider the

following:

1. Vacate the Summary Judgment against David Drake and MDFT, as it was obtained

based on improper actions and agreements signed under duress.

2. Dismiss All Claims made by Freeborn & Peters LLP for lack of a formal engagement

agreement and client consent.

3. Investigate Freeborn & Peters LLP for unethical practices, including coercion, misuse of

legal process, and failure to comply with professional conduct rules.

4. Award Damages to MDFT and David Drake for financial losses, emotional distress, and

reputational harm caused by Freeborn’s actions.

5. Issue Sanctions against Freeborn & Peters LLP for abuse of process and bad faith

conduct.

VII. Conclusion

Freeborn & Peters LLP’s actions are a clear violation of ethical and legal principles governing attorney conduct. Their improper billing, lack of client consent, and coercive tactics demonstrate bad faith and abuse of the legal system. Relief must be granted to prevent further harm and uphold the integrity of the law. This affidavit is being filed in the Middle District of North Carolina as of today December 17, 2024. The note is scheduled to paid out of MDFT December disbursements. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 17, 2024.