- 35 - In response to questions from the Court about the fact that petitioner's payments exceeded the fees received, petitioner gave the following explanation: They were paid out more in aggregate than I received in fees, yes, and these had to do with old matters existing prior to 1989 that were ultimately paid or resolved in 1989. It's not that I intended to lose money on this proposition. It's just that old matters were resolved. Now, people say, Gary, you could have not paid these matters, had the clients either pay them or whatever, and let them sue you, and then these would have been deductible at some time down the road, you would have incurred legal fees and the amounts may have been larger due to interest and penalties and you would have been caught up in court. But I decided to resolve older matters probably pertaining to years '82 to '84, particularly in the-–well, these matters were resolved-–well, problems arising from earlier years were resolved and negotiated with the clients in '89 and these were paid. There is no real relationship to the $2,815 in fees received in 1989 and the amounts paid. Obviously, in the case of Dr. Chang, which is items 13, 14, and 15, which aggregate $400, and item 21, which is a refund of $3,500–-well, those three amounts are minuscule in comparison to the 1990 collections of $25,830. So there is no correlation between the two. The reason I mentioned the fees is to show that they were, one, current clients, that I retained them, not obviously to show that this agreement had been reached and to show some perspective that, by and large, for most of the clients, the fees taken in and the retention of the relation- ship exceeded the amounts that were paid out in what would have been a divisive matter.Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011