From: Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:28 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: Payment doesn't need to go through Lat=am. I do this all the time. I retained Deloitte on behalf of th= bank, but the bank pays Deloitte directly. Arrangement is solely for=purposes of maintaining privilege. Sent from my iPhone <=iv> On Jul 23, 2015, at 10:22 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: lets discuss, issu=s - bank vs family, latham covel ? dont want t= run 40 million thru latham many iterations , im open =/div> On Thu, Jul 2=, 2015 at 10:16 AM, > wrote: If you are a consulta=t to me at Latham, it doesn't create any of the issues you were concerned a=out. I would open a new client matter representing the family, and th=n retain you as a consultant in connection with that matter. From a=privilege perspective, that is the best way to do it. Sent fr=m my iPhone On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:58 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected]<=a» wrote: =wake? On=Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Kathy Ruemmler Sent from my iPad On Jul 22, 2=15, at 6:53 PM, jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: shots? On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:37 PM, < <mailto > wrote: EFTA_R1_01617056 EFTA02493712