You would think that an attorney, who is constantly suing homeowners and Homeowner Associations, would know who does his bookkeeping. Well guess what?

March 03, 2004

By Ethical Hoas

You would think that an attorney who is constantly suing homeowners and Homeowner Associations, would know who does his bookkeeping. Well guess what?

We have "unearthed" a deposition which has been made part of a public record that shows at least one attorney is unable to disclose the identity of his "unidentified, alleged bookkeeper." These are the words directly of the attorney. He was billing an association $12,496.03, yet was unable to give the identity of the bookkeeper who should have been able to verify the funds.

Of course the funds were identifiable by the attorney from his "day timer." Rather interesting to the person reading the document was the fact that no other verification of the billing seemed to be available from the law firm.

Here is the deposition as is recorded in the public records:

DAVID MICHAEL PETERS, VOLUME I - 10/31/00

Q. Is there anything in Exhibit I where you identify that you need to obtain billing records from other counsel in order to make a determination as to what the liquidated sum of your lien is?

MR. PARKER: I'll object. The document speaks for itself. You don't have to answer the question. Let's take a break.

MR. SHOECRAFT: Sure. How long do you want to take?

MR. PARKER: Five minutes would be fine.
(Break)

BY MR. SHOECRAFT:
Q. Mr. Peters, you realize you're still under oath?
A. Yes
Q. Over our brief break, did you review any documents?
A. No.
Q. Returning to Exhibit 1, there are costs identified on Exhibit1 in the amount of $12,496.03. Do you know what those costs consisted of?
A. No.
Q. Who would know?
A. I don't know.
Q. Would there be someone in your firm who would know the answer to that question, sir?
A. I would think so.
Q. And who would it be?
A. I don't know. It's been a while.
Q. Who is the current controller for your firm?
A. We don't have a controller.
Q. Who is your current bookkeeper?
(Discussion off the record)

MR. PARKER: If you know.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.

BY MR. SHOECRAFT:
Q. Who is responsible within the firm for seeing to the identification of costs that are incurred on behalf of clients for your various clients of your firm?
A. That bookkeeper lady.
Q. You do have a bookkeeper?
A. We have somebody who puts together some of these costs. I just don't know who did it.
Q. I'm not asking you who did this one. I'm asking, who does it now, sir?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know who your bookkeeper is?
A. Actually, I don't.
Q. Do you have a bookkeeper in your firm?
A. I'm not sure the bookkeeper is the correct term, but I have somebody.
Q. What term would you use?
A. I don't have a term.
Q. Is this person a male or a female?
A. Woman.
Q. Can you describe her appearance to me, sir?
A. No.
Q. Is she an elderly woman?
A. No.
Q. Is she a young woman?
A. No.
Q. Is she in her mid 40s?
A. I don't know.
Q. How tall is she?
A. I don't know.
Q. How many employees does your firm have, sir?
A. About 30.
Q. How many attorneys are in your firm?
A. Nine, I think.
Q. How many partners?
A. Three.
Q. How many paralegals do you have?
A. Five or six.
Q. So you have three partners, six associates, and five or six paralegals; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have another 15 or so staff support people?
A. Yes.
Q. How many secretaries do you have?
A. Five or six, maybe seven.
Q. Six or seven? How many people do you have in your billing department?
A. Including the unidentified, alleged bookkeeper,a couple.
Q. You have two people in the what do you call it? An accounting department?
A. No.
Q. Do you have a name for it?
A. No.
Q. Do you know who anyone else is who works with this unaccounted-for, unidentified, alleged bookkeeper?
A. No. The name just doesn't seem to come to mind.
Q. I'm asking, who does this person interface with in doing whatever
the duties and responsibilities are that this person does on a daily basis? Who else does she work with, sir?
A. I think we have an accountant.
Q. Employed by your firm?
A. No.
Q. Does this person, this unidentified individual, work all by themselves, or is there someone else who is employed by your firm on a regular basis as an employee who works with this person in carrying out their duties on a daily basis?
A. No.
Q. She works alone.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see her in your office on a daily basis?
A. No.
Q. Are you in your office on a daily basis?
A. No.
Q. When you're in your office, do you see her?
A. No.
Q. Does she have an office?
A. No.
Q. Where does she work?
A. She has a station in a secretarial area.
Q. Who's immediately adjacent to her?
A. I want to say Xxxxx Xxxxxx.
Q. What is Xxxxx Xxxxxx's position?
A. My secretary.
Q. Is it your understanding that this unidentified person ... strike that. What is your understanding as to what the job duties and responsibilities are within your firm for this unidentified woman. who sits immediately adjacent to Ms. Xxxxxx?
A. I think she does some of the bookkeeping and works with the accountant for taxes, et cetera.
Q. Is there anyone else in the firm who does a greater degree of bookkeeping than this one individual does, who is employed by your firm as an employee?
A. I don't know.
Q. Who would know that answer, sir?
A. Perhaps Simon would.
Q. Do you know if he would or not?
A. No, I don't.
Q. If we were to notice the deposition of the bookkeeper for Peters & Freedman, would that be a sufficient enough description so that your firm would be able to produce for us this unidentified individual, since we can't seem to get her name?
A. I don't know. You'll have to talk with Keenan.

MR. SHOECRAFT: Would that work for you, Mr. Parker?
MR. PARKER: I'm not sure who he's referring to.

By MR. SHOECRAFT:
Q. I suppose I can continue on with this ludicrous line of questioning to try to get a better description of this individual so I can take her deposition, if we need to, but it seems to me we're wasting a tremendous amount of time to get something that would be very simple.
MR. PARKER: I agree. And certainly I can find out how the costs were computed in the lien.
MR. SHOECRAFT: And give me the name of a witness from your firm who could back it up for us?
MR. PARKER: Yes. Let's go off the record.
MR. SHOECRAFT: That would be wonderful.
(Discussion off the record)

There was a movie and book that was rather famous of late where the firm was taken down simply by the billing being ambigous. Also, isn't it rather peculiar that the "unidentified, alleged bookkeeper" would know about taxes but not about billing - normally referred to as income in most firms? I wonder...Do you? What is your opinion? Let me know!