Litigation and Business Appraisal: Calvin P. Anderson Essay

Introduction

Calvin P Anderson is a specialist with 15 years experience in a CPA firm. His experience range from the provision of traditional accounting to tax services but does not include business litigation or business appraisal services. Litigation and business appraisal is a new area that was introduced to Anderson by a friend and which he developed interest by reading widely and attending seminars.

After gaining some experience, Anderson called an attorney and informed him that he could perform and offer the services. He went ahead to produce and mailed a marketing literature to convince the attorney and other players in that particular area of law, and hence he was subsequently contacted by an experienced attorney in the field. The attorney, Justine Esquire, Peterson Jones Haskins and Dingle, LLP, inquired about Anderson’s service, education, experience in the field and whether or not he had experience in the economic analysis. When asked about his ability to testify, Anderson agreed.

When he was asked by Esquire about the fee he charged, Anderson told him that it was US $150 per month; this was based on hearsay information by Anderson that he can charge premium on litigation practice. In his response, Esquire agreed that he was willing to pay US$135 and he did not ask about the retainer fee. Esquire took time to confirm a deal with his client and after three weeks, Esquire called Anderson and informed him that the client had approved the cost of hiring, and Esquire went ahead to prepare a letter of engagement and mailed it for Anderson to sign and Anderson, upon receiving the letter, signed it without reviewing it.

List of Mistakes

1. Anderson gave chance to the attorney to prepare an engagement letter but he never had someone to review it on his behalf before signing it.
2. Anderson did not have enough background, training and experience relevant to the work.
3. Anderson lied to esquire about his experience and qualification thinking he will learn from the job.
4. Anderson should have contemplated about the proper disposition to handle the duties of work and to testify.
5. Anderson failed to review the engagement letter properly hence he missed on issues like terms of payment and contingency fees.
6. Anderson should have stressed that he be given his fees before giving his testimony.
7. Anderson should have developed contingency plans in the event the trial was delayed into the tax season.
8. Anderson should have learned from the case and Broke in order to accurately assess the potential damages.
9. Anderson did not have knowledge on the preparation of a report and he should have asked the attorney before signing the engagement letter.
10. Anderson should have sought a lot of information regarding the economic effects of termination of Broke on her future earnings in order to gauge from it his future earning capacity and to discount it at an appropriate rate.
11. Anderson should have obtained a retainer.
12. He should have developed an interest in working with a low class attorney to ensure stakes were not high.
13. He did not inquire from Esquire any additional information or questions touching on the two aspects of Broke whether single or married and any medical or dental costs.
14. Prior to preparation of damages, Anderson should have prepared any potential elements of damages. He should have obtained the information from potential available literature. Anderson should have also established if there were any statutory deductions.

Conclusion

Above are the principle mistakes that were committed by Anderson. The mistakes were a manifestation that Anderson entered into a field that he had no knowledge, education, background or experience. He should have practiced first before taking an assignment. He should have started rendering his services to the low class attorneys while developing experience in the field. Anderson should have consulted with an expert before undertaking any assignment particularly on the calculation of damages.