- 51 -
The next witness called by petitioner to testify as to the
reasonableness of the fees charged to the estate by the Tupitza
law firm was Tupitza. The direct examination of Tupitza was
conducted by Scott.14
Tupitza first explained that his firm had a policy of always
discussing fees in the first contact with the client in order to
reach an agreement on fees. He testified that the Supreme Court
(Pennsylvania) "had dictated that we disclose what the fees are
up front." In this case the firm agreed to represent the estate
on a fee per hour basis. He was then asked whether the agreement
was in writing. He responded:
We generally have a fee letter that we send to the
client and ask him to sign it and send it back. I
don't have it with me here, but I have no reason to
believe that I would have deviated from our normal
practice and not had a fee letter with her.
Tupitza then testified that he agreed with the estate to
bill his services at $225 per hour and Scott's services at $150
per hour.
We are left with Tupitza's uncorroborated, self-serving
testimony that this Court need not accept. Geiger v.
Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. T.C. Memo.
1969-159; Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992);
14 The total bill submitted to the estate by the Tupitza
firm approximates $197,000. Of that amount $67,437.50 was billed
for Tupitza's time; $115,535 was billed for Scott's time.
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011