Most law firms operate as general partnerships, limited liability partnerships or limited liability companies (together, "partnerships", whose members having capital in the firm herein are "partners"). Does your partnership keep two sets of books ' or more? Al Capone kept two sets of books, and the judge sent him to the Federal Pen for doing so. Yet many law firms (and other professional businesses) legally keep two or more sets of books, arising from different accounting systems prescribed by 1) their partnership Agreements; 2) generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) audited statements (which are required by some lenders and landlords), and 3) the tax laws. As a result, the firm's net assets ' and the partners' ownership of the law firm, as reflected in the partners' capital accounts ' may be substantially different under each set of books. Moreover, the amount and timing of the firm's cash distributions to partners, the amount of the partners' annual income taxes, and the availability and amount of bank loans to the firm may all be affected by the firm's applicable accounting methods ' all items that may substantially affect the partners' pocketbooks.
Sheldon I. BanoffMost law firms operate as general partnerships, limited liability partnerships or limited liability companies (together, “partnerships”, whose members having capital in the firm herein are “partners”).
Does your partnership keep two sets of books ' or more? Al Capone kept two sets of books, and the judge sent him to the Federal Pen for doing so.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Letter Agreement Between Landlord and Tenant Did Not Extinguish GuarantyTreble Damage Award Upheld; Landlord Failed to Establish Overcharge Was Not WillfulDenying Access to Landlord Constituted Breach Entitling Landlord to PossessionTenant Entitled to Yellowstone Injunction With Respect to Taxes and Sewer Charges
New York is one of the first states to adopt laws to regulate artificial intelligence use in advertising and to strengthen post-mortem publicity rights regarding AI-generated replicas and “synthetic performers.” Given the state’s role as a bellwether for consumer-protection and advertising regulation, these new laws, combined with the state’s broader AI legislative framework, represent a shift toward transparency, consent and accountability.
State app store age verification regimes do more than reallocate responsibility between platforms and developers. They create a new data supply chain for age knowledge, one that can move COPPA questions from “do we ask age?” to “what do we do when the platform tells us?” The teams that handle this best will treat platform age signals as sensitive compliance inputs: minimize them, tightly control where they flow, and design product behavior so that minors do not trigger unnecessary collection or disclosure.
The firms leading right now chose to ask what would become possible if they managed the entire revenue lifecycle — from invoice generation to cash receipt — in one place, and what AI could actually accomplish with complete data instead of partial feeds. That is the Power of One.
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), United States v. Heppner, has generated outsized commentary suggesting that the use of generative AI tools may jeopardize attorney-client privilege. A closer reading shows something far less dramatic.
