<table><tr><th>From: </th><th>jeffrey E. &lt;jeevacation@gmail.com&gt;</th></tr><tr><td>Sent: </td><td>Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:37 PM</td></tr><tr><td>To: </td><td>A. de Rothschild-2</td></tr><tr><td>Subject: </td><td>Fwd: </td></tr></table>

as i mentioned - I thought at a minimum=, we should memorialize our long standing privileged relationship.. =C24) so i asked kathy to opine

<u>Forwarded message</u>

From:

Date: Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1=:27 AM Subject: Re:

To: "jeffrey E." <jeevacation@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacati=n@gmail.com>>

Payment doesn't need to go through=Latham.=C2* I do this all the time. I retained Deloitte on behalf of the bank, but t=e bank pays Delo=tte directly. Arrangement is solely for purposes of maintaini=g privilege.

If you are a consultant to me at Latham, it does='t create any of the issues you were concerned about. I would op=n a new client matter representing the family, and then retain you as a co=sultant in connection with that matter. From a privilege perspective= that is the best way to do it.

--f46d04426e18d2dacc051b8bd231-- conversation-id 109597 date-last-viewed 0 date-received 1437662234 flags 8590195713 gmail-label-ids 7 6 remote-id 528102