- 19 -
L. & R. sec. 1208 (McKinney 1976 & Supp. 1995). The order and
the supporting papers we have described--the compromise petition,
the Lipsig firm affirmation, and petitioner's affirmation--all
are consistent in treating petitioner as entitled to a fee, which
he waived. Both the compromise petition and the Lipsig firm
affirmation describe a contingent fee arrangement of
33-1/3 percent (later reduced to 30 percent). If the arrangement
were otherwise, i.e., if, from the beginning, petitioner had been
entitled to no portion of that fee and the Lipsig firm was to get
less than 33-1/3 percent (later, 30 percent), then the compromise
petition and the Lipsig firm affirmation were misleading, if not
fraudulent. We do not believe that to be the case. Petitioner
assisted and was a tremendous help to the Lipsig firm in the
prosecution of the malpractice action. The retainer,
petitioner's retainer statement, and his arrangement with the
Lipsig firm all are consistent with the conclusion that
petitioner earned and was entitled to a fee. The only evidence
to the contrary is the testimony of petitioner and Hester.
Petitioner's testimony was not straightforward; we found him
evasive in many of his answers. We accord his testimony little
weight. Hester's testimony agreed with that of her brother.
Because of the close family relationship, and because she exposed
herself to no adverse income tax consequence, we also accord her
testimony little weight.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011