OH! What Lovely Law March 2006
UKLawyersWeekending |
Number 1
23rd March 2006
OH! What Lovely Law!
16 March 2006
No Time for A Round-Up
Court Censures Attorney for Making 45 Minutes Equal One Hour of Workby Terry Carter
An interesting discussion of billing practices in Kansas and
elsewhere. The views of what is permissible range from allowing
the uplift of 45 minutes to 1 hour to stating that modern
technology is sufficiently sophisticated to measure exact time
spent and so make rounding of any sort unethical.
Take note of the LexisNexis advert on that page - why don't we get
the full LexisNexis service in the UK??
9 March 2006
David Mill's Famous Letter
Text of letter from David Mills, the lawyer at the forefront of
the Tessa Jowell problems, written to his accountants. He claims
he was inventing a scenario to obtain tax advice. What do you
think? What would this tell us, not just about Mr Mills, but
about his partners and colleagues, if it were true? Did the Inland
Revenue take any action as a resukt of this letter and will its contents
come back to haunt him?
2 February 2004
"Dear Bob
The brief relevant facts are these.
In 1996 I ended up with a dividend from Mr B's companies of around
£1.5m after all the tax and fees had been paid.
This was all done on a personal basis: I took the risk, and kept
my partners right out of it.
Wisely or otherwise, I informed my partners what I had done and,
since it was a substantial windfall, offered to pay them (I think)
around £50,000 or £100,000 each as what I though [sic] was a
pretty generous gesture.
Which shows you how you can be, as they insisted the transaction
should be treated as a partnership profit. To avoid litigation (we
had just merged with Withers) I agreed to put the money on deposit
in my bank until they were satisfied that there would be no third
part claim.
By 2000 it was clear there would be no claim (I knew that all
along) and the money was taken off deposit and paid out; I kept
just under £500,000 out of what was then getting on for £2m.
So all that risk and cost for not very much. The greatest cost was
leaving Withers. I was not asked to leave it, but felt so
uncomfortable there, not least because my Mackenzie Mills partners
had taken most of the benefit for none of the risk, that I really
couldn't stay.
I spent 1998, 1999 and 2000 as a sole practitioner, and it was
evident that the trials were going on, there would be lawyers to
pay and there was always the risk of being charged with something
- which is actually about to happen now as a result of the latest
investigation, which you know about.
I kept in close touch with the B people, and they knew my
circumstances.
They knew, in particular, how my partners had taken most of the
dividend; they also knew quite how much the way in which I had
been able to give my evidence (I told no lies, but I turned some
very tricky corners, to put it mildly) had kept Mr B out of a
great deal of trouble that I would have landed him in if I had
said all I knew.
At around the end of 1999, I was told I would receive money, which
I could treat as a long term loan or a gift. $600,000 was put in a
hedge fund and I was told it would be there if I needed it.
(It was put in the fund because the person connected to the B
organisations was someone I had discussed this fund with on many
occasions, and it was a round about way of making the money
available.)
For obvious reasons of their own (I was at that stage still a
prosecution witness, but my evidence had been given) it needed to
be done discreetly. And this was a roundabout way.
At the end of 2000 I wanted to invest in another fund, and my bank
made a loan of the amount, secured on my house etc., of around
650,000 euros. I paid it off by liquidating the $600,000. I attach
a copy of the dollar account.
I regarded the payment as a gift. What else could it be? I wasn't
employed, I wasn't acting for them, I wasn't doing anything for
them, I had already given my evidence, but there was certainly the
risk of future legal costs (as there have been) and a great deal
of anxiety (as there certainly have been).
This has been going on for more than eight years now. My contract
was aware of how my income earning capacity had been damaged, and
in 1998 and 1999 I was able to send bills from my practice to
certain companies, which were paid and increased my income. But
this was different.
Because I was pretty sure my CGT position was negative overall, I
stupidly made no returns on my transactions. If they are closely
looked at (i.e., where did the money come from to buy the
centurion shares?), I am obviously concerned about what to do and
how this should best be handled.
I attach the key documents.
Yours sincerely
David Mills"
2 March 2006
"New York"
Heir is the Dog
Pet Owners' Wills Provide for Their Animals
by Dick DahlHere's an interesting article from New York Magazine about clients
who set up trusts for their pets and the tax consequences.
Its good to see DLA at the cutting edge in this field - I wonder
what their Bradford branch thinks to that!