- 40 -
each other. Becker, however, testified that he had a “very close
relationship with the majority of [his] clients.” Petitioner was
not singled out, and nothing in the evidence demonstrates that
Becker treated petitioner any differently from any other
client.15 Becker offered the investments in SAB Foam and other
similar partnerships to many of his clients.
Second, petitioner contends that Lewin “kept in touch” with
Miller over the 10 years after he left Miller & Summit. At
trial, however, Miller testified that after Lewin left the firm,
they “rarely” kept in touch. On this matter, we consider Miller
a more reliable witness than either petitioner or Lewin.
Miller’s testimony clearly shows that he had no special and close
relationship with Lewin during the years in issue. In addition,
Miller’s testimony does not suggest that petitioner had any
significant contact with Miller other than at the meeting with
Boylan & Evans to discuss the memorandum.
Petitioner asserts that Lewin also had an especially close
relationship with PI. Lewin testified, however, that he did not
15 Becker testified:
there is nothing different that I told to one client
about the same issue than I told to another client.
There may have been things I said to one client that
might not have been said to another. But, if I spoke
about one issue while I might not have used precisely
the same words, in substance, * * * what was said to
one client on one matter, was said to every other
client when that matter was discussed.
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011