Chương 5
“No.”
Marcus nodded. “Then tell them that tomorrow.”
“I’ll come in.”
“You’ll call in.”
“I am not hiding in a hotel.”
“You are under a protection order because your ex-husband broke into your house last night.”
“I’m not hiding in a hotel,” she repeated.
Marcus looked at Daniel, who had returned an hour earlier. “Does she always become twelve years old when told not to do something?”
Daniel said, “Only when the advice is sound.”
Elise ate a spoonful of soup. It was lentil and had too much cumin.
Marcus opened his legal pad. “I moved all external meetings to video. I asked our compliance consultant to review system access. I did not tell him why beyond potential litigation.”
“Good.”
“I also put your assistant on paid leave.”
Elise set down the spoon. “Why?”
“She forwarded a reporter’s email to her personal account.”
“She probably wanted to show her husband.”
“She can show him from the office.”
“Marcus.”
“Her password was GrantBellamyIsHot.”
Elise stared at him.
“I wish I were making that up.”
A laugh caught in her throat, and this time it became real.
Marcus did not smile. “You hired her.”
“She had excellent references.”
“She also has questionable taste.”
For ten seconds, the scandal shrank to the ridiculousness of a password.
Then Daniel’s phone rang.
He answered, listened, and walked toward the window.
When he returned, his face had changed.
“The foundation filed suit against you.”
Elise stopped smiling.
“They’re seeking return of confidential records, damages for unauthorized access, and an order preventing disclosure.”
“After reporting me to the police?”
“Civil court. They filed an emergency application and attached your removal letter.”
“Can they stop me from giving evidence to investigators?”
“They can ask for broad language. We will oppose it.”
Marcus leaned back. “This is designed to frighten clients.”
“Yes,” Daniel said.
Elise looked at the soup. A thin layer of oil had formed on the surface.
“What do they claim I stole?”
“Financial records, donor information, internal communications, board materials, and privileged legal advice.”
“I never downloaded donor identities.”
“We will establish what you took and why.”
“Lucinda is doing this.”
“Almost certainly.”
Elise picked up the spoon again, though she was no longer hungry.
“Then we answer.”
The emergency hearing occurred three days later in a courtroom too small for the number of attorneys the Bellamy Foundation brought.
Lucinda sat in the first row wearing cream tweed and pearls. Her contact photograph had not exaggerated the severity of her face. She did not look toward Elise when she entered. Grant was absent under the terms of the no-contact order, though his attorney sat beside the foundation’s counsel.
The foundation argued that Elise had copied confidential material after becoming hostile to the Bellamy family, then used claims of misconduct to justify taking it. Their attorney emphasized the timing: the downloads began during divorce negotiations and continued after Elise was told she would be removed from the board.
Daniel responded that Elise’s access remained authorized when she preserved the files, that she had identified suspicious transactions before her removal, and that she had delivered the archive to counsel and investigators rather than publishing it.
The judge refused to order the destruction or return of evidence already provided to authorities. She prohibited Elise from publicly distributing donor information or unrelated private communications while the dispute continued. She also directed both sides to preserve devices and records.
It was not a victory broad enough for headlines.
The Bellamys issued another statement calling the order an important protection for donors.
Outside the courthouse, reporters crowded the sidewalk.
“Elise, did you take confidential documents?”
“Did you approve payments to Arbor Civic Strategies?”
“Is this revenge against your former husband?”
“Did Grant assault you?”
Daniel guided her toward a waiting car.
Then someone shouted, “Why did you sign the transfers?”
Elise stopped.
Daniel touched her elbow. “Keep moving.”
The reporter called again. “Your signature is on at least two payments. Were you involved?”
The information had not appeared in the public filings.
Lucinda’s attorneys had leaked it.
Elise turned toward the cameras.
Daniel stepped between her and the curb. “Not here.”
For a moment, she hated him for physically blocking her. Then she saw Lucinda near the courthouse doors, watching.
Lucinda’s expression held no triumph. Only assessment.
Elise got into the car.
By the time they reached Daniel’s office, three business outlets had published stories saying she had personally authorized payments to the vendor she now described as suspicious.
One headline called her both whistleblower and participant.
Marcus phoned to report that two more clients were leaving.
Elise stood in Daniel’s conference room, looking at the city through glass walls.
“We should release the login records showing the third signature came from Grant’s office.”
“No,” Daniel said.
“Why?”
“Because selective evidence will look selective. Because we have not completed forensic verification. Because releasing it may violate the court’s order. Because investigators need clean access before public contamination.”
“They are calling me a thief.”
“They were going to call you something.”
“I can prove he used my credentials.”
“You can prove the login came from his office. That is not the same thing.”
She turned. “You sound like them.”
“I sound like a lawyer.”
“You sound afraid.”
“I am afraid. You should be too.”
The answer stopped her.
Daniel removed his glasses and cleaned them with the edge of his tie.
“I have watched people destroy their credibility trying to win one news cycle,” he said. “You have evidence, but you also have exposure. Lucinda knows that. She wants you angry enough to become careless.”
Elise looked through the conference-room glass. A young associate hurried past carrying three coffees in a cardboard tray. One cup tilted, and he caught it against his chest before it fell. No one else noticed.
May you like
“What do I say to my clients?” she asked.
“The truth that you can support. You approved two payments without adequate review. You later found irregularities. You preserved records and reported them. You dispute the authenticity of another approval.”
