TLS signed “Ray,” two pages, 8.5 x 11, personal letterhead, December 27, 1947. Lengthy letter to “Swanie,” his literary agent H. N. Swanson, in full: “Many, many thanks for the humidor you sent me. I needed it very badly as I only have two and should have one in every room in the house. I hope you had a nice Christmas. I spent mine in bed fighting off some kind of a virus infection. Enclosed is a complete ‘final’ script for delivery to Universal-International at the earliest date which insures that no check will be issued by them this year. I have talked to Joe about this and since it really makes no difference to him I suggest January 2 for delivery date. Enclosed also is the original of pages 120 to the end for delivery to Joe at the same time. He has all the rest. This morning I received a letter from Irwin Allen of the Orsatti Agency about the radio show. Undoubtedly you will have received a copy. I really don't know what to say about this. I don't think the summer show was well handled from any point of view. I am not convinced that it is necessary to have a name star for the lead. I think Allyn Joslyn would be much better than Dick Powell, whose tight-lipped, smart-alecky manner is precisely what I feel the show should avoid, since this sort of thing is now thoroughly dated. I think the show should be more sophisticated and less violent and that, even if I got less money, I ought to have some real authority over the script. What I had last time was the right to see the script and make suggestions, none of which was followed; so I very soon stopped making them. I suppose you have heard that Pete Bruington came down here on November 16 and that he and David Tyler and I had a long and exhausting conference in which Pete at great length and with great force and subtlety stated his justification for charging me in connection with the radio show and the U-I contract. Pete's position (with which you are by this time undoubtedly familiar) is that an attorney retained by an agent to scrutinize contracts made by the agent for the benefit of an individual client acts only for the account and interest of the agent, and that any legal benefit to the client is purely incidental. Pete declares that since the agent cannot render a legal service in his own person or through his corporation he cannot render a legal service through his retained attorney. He declares that if, during the course of his examination of contracts, a danger or potential danger to the individual client should appear, he would call attention to this danger, but would not do any more, unless the agent's client were also his own personal client. If that happened to be the case, Pete would insist on the right to determine at what point he represented the individual client as separate and distinct from his representation of the agent. He would discuss his fee, but he would not discuss his right to perform the service and to demand a fee. He was most emphatic in saying that no agent may properly tell a client that he does not need a personal attorney, since that implies an undertaking on the part of the agent to protect the client in certain legal matters. I am in no position to argue such a point with Pete. It is fair to assume that a competent lawyer could make some sort of argument, since there are two sides to every question. Pete, by the nature of his case, was committed to defend a position already taken. The practice of law is such that an attorney is usually in this position; he seldom can have a judicially open mind. The practical effect is that I can in no way whatsoever rely on a contract, negotiated by you and examined by your lawyer, being drawn up in such a manner as to protect my individual interests. Even if it might reasonably be said that in many, or in most cases, the deals you make follow established forms, and contain no particular element of danger to the client as an individual, this is not true of the exception, and of those contracts or deals which are not exceptions it might be said that they could contain some particular danger for some particular client. A client warned of the possibility of such danger may prefer to take the calculated risk of signing the contract rather than be under the constant necessity of paying legal fees in addition to agent's commissions. In practice the client does not take a calculated risk because he is not warned and is not aware of the risk. He assumes that he is receiving from the agent a service which he is not receiving at all, that the agent is an expert in a field wherein he is not an expert, that when a contract is placed before him for signature there is an implied warranty that it is proper and safe for him to sign it. For decades and for generations literary agents have been acting towards their clients as though this were the case, and I believe that the agent usually looks at this situation exactly as the client does: that the agent does consider it his du