Chris and Jay,

Thanks for the heads-up and your assessments.

I am a firm believer in you get what you pay for.

We certainly don’t want  and can’t afford to risk sending any unintended messages to the FCC nor the BPL coalition.

I believe that we need to stay with W-H.

- Bill N3LLR

From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:28 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: RE: Confidential: BPL Appeal Memo

My Comments:

1. The work product of Wilmer-Hale has been first rate.
2. A good faith estimate is just that, it is an estimate not a guarantee. 
3. The discussion between Chris and Mr. Frankel reflects W-H understanding that the fees have substantially exceeded and pushed the outer limits of the estimate, as well as, an appreciation of an obligation to see this appeal through to the end.
4. Changing counsel at this point would be expensive and may indirectly send an unintended message.
5. I believe Chris’s is correct that Wilmer-Hale has a reputation for excellent work and is not going to reduce their effort and risk tarnishing that reputation if they agree to cap the fees in this matter.

73,

Jay, KØQB

-----Original Message-----
From: w3kd@aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:38 AM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: Confidential: BPL Appeal Memo

MEMORANDUM

[Text Removed]