Benson Fischer and the Backdated Letters: How a Finder’s Fee Fight Turned Into a $970,000 Sanctions Bomb

Benson J. Fischer (Fischer Brewing Co., “Redneck Beer”) enlisted Howard L. Flax to help find financing, under a Letter Agreement promising Flax a 15% equity stake if financing closed with an underwriter Flax introduced. 01-CV-184
Flax contacted Laidlaw & Co. in March 1996, and Fischer met Laidlaw reps (including Doug Miscoll) in New York as Laidlaw began assembling a financing package including a public stock offering. 01-CV-184
Fischer later learned that NASD fair practice rules likely meant the combined compensation (Flax + Laidlaw) couldn’t exceed limits—creating a direct conflict with the 15% promise to Flax. 01-CV-184

Laidlaw’s Doug Miscoll discovered a letter/package purportedly sent March 6, 1996 by Howard Reissner on Fischer’s behalf—dated a few days before Flax’s initial contact with Laidlaw. 01-CV-184
Miscoll wrote to Flax indicating Laidlaw would recognize Reissner as the finder and pay him $10,000 if financing was provided. 01-CV-184
Negotiations between Fischer and Flax over reduced compensation deteriorated; Laidlaw ultimately withdrew, citing market conditions and other factors, and Fischer blamed Flax and Flax’s attorney for the deal’s collapse. 01-CV-184

Fischer sued Flax, Flax’s law firm Paley Rothman, and attorney Alan S. Mark alleging a stack of claims including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, and more—including “extortion.” 01-CV-184
The appellate court notes Fischer cited no law recognizing a civil cause of action for extortion in D.C., and that civil extortion has been rejected elsewhere. 01-CV-184

The trial court granted summary judgment to Paley Rothman and Mark, and the appellate court affirmed: an attorney generally cannot “conspire” with their client when acting within the scope of representation, and Fischer lacked evidence that Mark acted in bad faith or outside his role. 01-CV-184

On the trial date, Fischer sought continuances citing “significant medical problems” but repeatedly refused to provide a diagnosis/prognosis sufficient for the court to evaluate the request. 01-CV-184
After the judge denied another continuance, Fischer (through counsel) said he would not proceed; the judge dismissed Fischer’s complaint with prejudice. 01-CV-184

The case proceeded on the Flax Estate’s counterclaim for quantum meruit (payment for services rendered). A jury awarded $300,000. 01-CV-184

This is the most consequential factual nucleus in the opinion:

The trial judge found Fischer’s “Reissner finder” storyline “spurious” because the March 6, 1996 letter was actually prepared on March 24, 1996 (after Flax’s contact with Laidlaw) and backdated to look earlier. 01-CV-184
The judge found Fischer knew the truth before filing suit. 01-CV-184
During discovery, the judge found Fischer played a “direct role” in “creating” and passing off as authentic three additional letters from Reissner supporting that narrative. 01-CV-184
The opinion states Reissner’s story shifted: he first said the letters came from company files, then said they were “recreated from recollection,” later denied involvement in the “re-creation,” and testimony showed Fischer instructed a secretary to “retype” the letters using the supposed March 6 letter as the model. 01-CV-184
The judge concluded Fischer orchestrated a “continuing cover-up” of his involvement in letters “fraudulently documenting” Reissner’s entitlement to the finder’s fee. 01-CV-184
The appellate court said these findings were not clearly erroneous and characterized them as tantamount to “fraud upon the court.” 01-CV-184

After an evidentiary hearing (which Fischer did not attend personally or through counsel), the judge awarded defendants collectively about $930,000 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus $40,000 punitive damages, for bad faith litigation—and the appellate court affirmed. 01-CV-184

The “provocative but factual” bottom line

This opinion isn’t about harassment in the everyday sense.
It is about what a court deemed litigation misconduct serious enough to trigger massive fee sanctions, centered on backdated and “re-created” documents and a judge-described cover-up.