John Walter Easterbrook

Jack Easterbrook was the "primary attorney", representing me some years ago, as a small business owner, in a Commercial case (theft of customers by an ex-employee). Easterbrook billed me approximately $50,000+ in legal fees, though got my ex-employee to pay a settlement of $30,000. (Not worth my time... and uncertainty of outcome. But, lesson learned). But then the ex-employee filed a claim, that the $30,000 was not justified..(even though Easterbrook had purportedly won it for me in the settlement). Easterbrook advised not to worry about including a settlement of it, as part of the original aforementioned herein case. But instead to defend against it subsequently (case #2). Then as case #2 proceeded, and remembering well the time and cost of case #1, said would cost less in legal fees for case #2, than paying back the $30,000. I said if it looked like it was going to approach $30,000 in legal fees for case #2, to stop and I'd pay the $30,000 to settle. However, over the course of several months, Easterbrook utilized what I'd call a slow/flood method (monthly "slow" billings of $1K - $2K, while suggesting close to closure...then intra-month with no warning, a "flood" billing of $30K+). This resulted in another approximately $50,000 in legal fees to Easterbrook, and still my having to pay back the $30,000 to the employee. Summary: The only winner here is Jack Easterbrook, double dipping for approximately $100,000 in legal fees. While Jack Easterbrook: 1) first took a case that he arguably should have known would cost more than could win. 2) not able to win a subsequent case, just to be able to keep for me, what he "won" in the first case. PS As it's been some years, Easterbrook may: a) feign not remembering my case, b) write some generic non-response, like this is so against his core values, that it couldn't have happened. c) Or, he'll combine a) & b), while having a paralegal post for him. Since he's unlikely to go on record, under his own. You know what that means.... he's hiding.