A 9th Circuit court ruled that the former publicist of Heather Mills, who was the former wife of Beatles member Paul McCartney, will not be getting her just compensation over discounted legal fees. The Hollywood Reporter said that public relations specialist Michele Blanchard worked with Mills towards the end of the latter's divorce with the celebrity musician.
Blanchard claimed in her lawsuit against Mills that her client lied regarding her capacity to pay the former her $5,000 monthly fee in 2007. Blanchard initially agreed to whittle the fee down to $3,000 per month, of which Mills obliged, said THR. Mills walked out £24.3 million richer after finalizing her divorce with McCartney in 2008.
THR sad that Blanchard reportedly felt cheated out after learning Mills' financial standing after her divorce case with McCartney, which led to the publicist issuing out a final invoice totaling $168,000 for her services. The Hollywood news site said that Blanchard did not charge Mills with the agreed discounted price, and opted to charge the divorcee the full amount for work done between April 2005 and March 2007 and $2,000-a-month fees for work done after the time.
Judges of the 9th Circuit court told Blanchard's PR firm that Mills' testimony regarding her ability to pay her debts did not touch whether she can fully afford the publicist's full fees, said THR. Moreover, the evidence submitted by Blanchard were weak, which include $30,000 charity cruise, a £2.5 million interim payment Mills had received as part of her divorce settlement in April 2007 and high-scale rental listings Mills reportedly had been eyeing on, said the court.
"A promise to do something in the future can give rise to fraud when the promise is made with no intention to perform. But Mills' statement is too vague to support a concrete promise to pay Blanchard $5,000 per month for future work and for work done two years prior. The invoices Blanchard sent Mills beginning in April 2007 stated the 'total amount due' each month was $3,000, plus expenses. These invoices negate any inference that the parties intended a retroactive payment for the same periods for more money," the ruling read.
