LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > Regional Forums > Ohio

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 45
1 members and 44 guests
Hank Chinaski
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-02-2005, 04:46 PM   #331
Penske_Account
WacKtose Intolerant
 
Penske_Account's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PenskeWorld
Posts: 11,627
announcement

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes. Behind, as usual.

I'm a giver, not a taker.
__________________
Since I'm a righteous man, I don't eat ham;
I wish more people was alive like me



Penske_Account is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2005, 11:07 AM   #332
andViolins
(Moderator) oHIo
 
andViolins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: there
Posts: 1,049
Arter & Hadden Returns

Looking for restitution

The former partners of bankrupt Cleveland law firm Arter & Hadden LLP knew the firm was insolvent two years prior to being shuttered in 2003, yet still improperly paid themselves $18.8 million from the firm’s coffers, a bankruptcy trustee has alleged in a complaint filed Sunday.

The complaint seeks restitution of $55 million from the partners and successive firms for “unwarranted capital distribution, improper expenditures, negligent financial reporting and depletion of assets.”

In addition, trustee Marc P. Gertz contends that the approximately 170 partners, along with their successor firms, failed to transfer back $32 million in case fees they had taken with them to their new firms, which opened in the same office space Arter & Hadden occupied. The new firms, Tucker, Ellis & West LLP and Bailey Cavalieri LLC, opened the day after Arter & Hadden shuttered in the former firm’s offices, with the same staff and furniture, the complaint alleges.

Also, the firm had about $3 million in questionable expenses, including an unnamed partners’ Arizona retreat that cost the firm $500,000 less than six months before Arter & Hadden closed.


A majority of the defendants named in the lawsuit work at Tucker Ellis and Bailey Cavalieri.

Tucker Ellis managing partner Bob Tucker is among the former Arter & Hadden officials named in the complaint. In a statement, he called the charges “inexplicable” and “based on mistaken conjecture, misinformation and misplaced cynicism.”

“The lawyers for the trustee have chosen to ignore the facts,” he said. “Their claims and accusations are simply wrong.”

In a phone interview, Mr. Tucker said the former partners of the firm did receive compensation for their work, but did not contribute to Arter & Hadden’s downfall.

“Those lawyers lost all of their investments in Arter & Hadden,” he said. “We lost all of our retirement benefits. There was no reason any Arter & Hadden partner would want the law firm to fail.”

While the suit says Tucker & Ellis had an office in Texas, Mr. Tucker said that was never the case.

“That’s an example of the misinformation the trustee has that pervades the entire complaint they have filed,” he said.

Irving B. Sugerman, an attorney representing Mr. Gertz, said the claims made in the filing will be substantiated in court. No hearing date has yet been scheduled. Mr. Sugerman said 36 former partners of Arter & Hadden had settled previously.

Officials at Bailey Cavalieri could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.

An attorney exodus undermined Arter & Hadden’s expansion drive in the 1990s, a campaign that saw the regional firm expand from 70 attorneys to 465 lawyers in California, Ohio and Washington, D.C. The departures left the firm with lagging revenue, unfunded pension obligations and other financial woes, according to the complaint.

In January 2004, a group of retirees pushed the firm into involuntary bankruptcy proceedings, saying they were owed unpaid retirement benefits.

The firm’s bankruptcy case is ongoing in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/...6&Profile=1006

aV
andViolins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 11:24 AM   #333
andViolins
(Moderator) oHIo
 
andViolins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: there
Posts: 1,049
Bar Exam

Congrats to all in Ohio who took and passed the July 2005 Bar Exam. Results are posted here:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Admiss...SP/default.asp

aV
andViolins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2005, 10:42 AM   #334
spookyfish
Rageaholic
 
spookyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: On the margins.
Posts: 3,507
Geez, how would you like to be this guy?

Man convicted of murder/rape of his mother-in-law, rape/attempted murder of his then six-year-old niece is exonerated by DNA evidence. MIL's neighbor likely to be charged with crimes.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/13420862.htm

I'm thinking a simple "I'm sorry," isn't going to suffice.
__________________
Some people say I need anger management. I say fuck them.
spookyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2006, 10:48 PM   #335
redheaded stepkid
Unholy Toledo!
 
redheaded stepkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: billableville
Posts: 103
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

I'm not sure if this board gets much substantive play, but I am casting a wide net for info......

I'm a first year at Ohio BIGlaw and while it may be a little early to have partnership questions, I like to be prepared (and as tax time approaches I am doing a little long-term economic plannin).

When someone becomes a partner at a biglaw firm, what is the typical buy-in? Is it a flat sum? Percentage? What is the basis? Physical assets plus some calculated revenue valuation? Is it all due upon election to partnership or is it a graduated buy-in over time? Is the buy-in tax deductible as a business expense?

thanks.
redheaded stepkid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:13 AM   #336
andViolins
(Moderator) oHIo
 
andViolins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: there
Posts: 1,049
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by redheaded stepkid
I'm not sure if this board gets much substantive play, but I am casting a wide net for info......

I'm a first year at Ohio BIGlaw and while it may be a little early to have partnership questions, I like to be prepared (and as tax time approaches I am doing a little long-term economic plannin).

When someone becomes a partner at a biglaw firm, what is the typical buy-in? Is it a flat sum? Percentage? What is the basis? Physical assets plus some calculated revenue valuation? Is it all due upon election to partnership or is it a graduated buy-in over time? Is the buy-in tax deductible as a business expense?

thanks.
Lots of questions. Don't believe that you are going to get a lot of good answers. I think that your situation will depend on your firm. More specifically, does the firm have a two or three tiered partnership. If your firm does have non-equity/equity then I will assume that this will affect the amount of the buy-in for the initial level. In addition, when there is the big hit (single tier or step 2 at multi-tier) then there is (I believe) usually some type of buy-in period. As for your tax questions, no idea. I'm just a labor lawyer.

I must respect your early planning. You are definitely trying to be prepared.

aV
andViolins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:15 AM   #337
spookyfish
Rageaholic
 
spookyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: On the margins.
Posts: 3,507
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
Lots of questions. Don't believe that you are going to get a lot of good answers. I think that your situation will depend on your firm. More specifically, does the firm have a two or three tiered partnership. If your firm does have non-equity/equity then I will assume that this will affect the amount of the buy-in for the initial level. In addition, when there is the big hit (single tier or step 2 at multi-tier) then there is (I believe) usually some type of buy-in period. As for your tax questions, no idea. I'm just a labor lawyer.

I must respect your early planning. You are definitely trying to be prepared.

aV
I just knew you'd come through on this one.
__________________
Some people say I need anger management. I say fuck them.
spookyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 01:32 PM   #338
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by redheaded stepkid
I'm not sure if this board gets much substantive play, but I am casting a wide net for info......

I'm a first year at Ohio BIGlaw and while it may be a little early to have partnership questions, I like to be prepared (and as tax time approaches I am doing a little long-term economic plannin).

When someone becomes a partner at a biglaw firm, what is the typical buy-in? Is it a flat sum? Percentage? What is the basis? Physical assets plus some calculated revenue valuation? Is it all due upon election to partnership or is it a graduated buy-in over time? Is the buy-in tax deductible as a business expense?

thanks.
A partnership buy-in would not be deductible, since it's paid to acquire an interest in a capital asset. However, your buy-in would give you a basis in your interest, against which you can deduct your share of partnership losses and expenses that are passed through.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 01:36 PM   #339
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 83,410
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by spookyfish
I just knew you'd come through on this one.
i was still most helpful: my advice- you can ask people at your firm this- it shouldn't be some secret.
__________________
like Kanye.
Hank Chinaski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 02:44 PM   #340
andViolins
(Moderator) oHIo
 
andViolins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: there
Posts: 1,049
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i was still most helpful: my advice- you can ask people at your firm this- it shouldn't be some secret.
While I whole-heartedly agree that Hank is most helpful, I am sadf to say that yes, here, in aV land, it is kept somewhat of a secret from associates.

aV
andViolins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 03:23 PM   #341
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 21,876
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
I must respect your early planning. You are definitely trying to be prepared.
aV
I have a question myself. I am learning the guitar and am concerned that I might get a raw deal from my record company on my first three disc deal. Can anyone offer me the name of an honest agent?

Preferably one who'll be alive in 2014.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 04:11 PM   #342
redheaded stepkid
Unholy Toledo!
 
redheaded stepkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: billableville
Posts: 103
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
Lots of questions. Don't believe that you are going to get a lot of good answers. I think that your situation will depend on your firm. More specifically, does the firm have a two or three tiered partnership. If your firm does have non-equity/equity then I will assume that this will affect the amount of the buy-in for the initial level. In addition, when there is the big hit (single tier or step 2 at multi-tier) then there is (I believe) usually some type of buy-in period. As for your tax questions, no idea. I'm just a labor lawyer.

I must respect your early planning. You are definitely trying to be prepared.

aV
Thanks Violins. Is there a general formula/economic rationale that compromises the buy-in?
redheaded stepkid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 04:12 PM   #343
redheaded stepkid
Unholy Toledo!
 
redheaded stepkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: billableville
Posts: 103
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
A partnership buy-in would not be deductible, since it's paid to acquire an interest in a capital asset. However, your buy-in would give you a basis in your interest, against which you can deduct your share of partnership losses and expenses that are passed through.
Yikes, I am not looking for losses, but I suppose expenses are inevitable.
redheaded stepkid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 04:15 PM   #344
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by redheaded stepkid
Yikes, I am not looking for losses, but I suppose expenses are inevitable.
Neither were the partners at Brobeck or Jenkens & Gilchrist.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 04:15 PM   #345
redheaded stepkid
Unholy Toledo!
 
redheaded stepkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: billableville
Posts: 103
partnership Q (cross-post from Infirmation.com)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i was still most helpful: my advice- you can ask people at your firm this- it shouldn't be some secret.
I have talked to some of the other first years and the general feel is that the only people who know are partners or perhaps very senior associates. The perception here is that it would be uncool in a big way to be asking about such things. Is your firm open about this info?
redheaded stepkid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 PM.