In the ongoing Corbin Fulton County case hearing, Nathan Wade was questioned regarding his financial status and business transactions. During the cross-examination, Ms. Marchant focused on the disparity in Mr. Wade's income since working for Fulton County. Although Mr. Wade acknowledged making significantly less money, he clarified that the reduction was due to the division of financial responsibilities within the law firm. Previously a three-way partner, Mr. Wade now shares profits equally with one other partner.
Ms. Marchant proceeded to discuss Mr. Wade's business and personal tax returns. It was revealed that despite being a partner with others in the law firm, Mr. Wade continued to file his business returns under his own name. In 2019, his gross profit was reported as $184,824, which increased to $230,000 in 2020, $236,000 in 2021, and $262,000 in 2022. These figures contradicted Mr. Wade's claim of earning significantly less since joining Fulton County.
Furthermore, Ms. Marchant questioned the absence of any documentation in Mr. Wade's business returns regarding cash payments from Ms. Willis. Mr. Wade stated that his accountant would allocate and categorize expenses accordingly, but there was no mention of reimbursements from Ms. Willis.
Ms. Marchant also raised concerns about the truthfulness of Mr. Wade's financial affidavits. In both 2022 and 2024, Mr. Wade swore under oath that he only possessed $5,000 in cash. Additionally, Mr. Wade's responses to interrogatories consistently denied the existence of cash stored in safes, safety deposit boxes, or any other location. Mr. Wade explained that he did not store cash and opted not to disclose such information for privacy reasons.
The line of questioning then focused on the disposition of Mr. Wade's earnings from Fulton County. It was revealed that after June 2022, all checks from Fulton County were deposited into Mr. Wade's personal bank account, contrary to the idea of joint banking accounts with his former partners. However, Mr. Wade clarified that checks were written to Campbell and Bradley to reflect the distribution of profits.
Furthermore, Ms. Marchant highlighted the issue of obtaining bank records. They issued subpoenas for these records but faced objections from Mr. Wade. The matter of relevance was raised by Ms. Cross, leading the judge to sustain the objection and halt further questioning on the topic.
Finally, Ms. Marchant inquired about waiving attorney-client privilege with Mr. Bradley to allow his testimony, to which Mr. Wade firmly declined.
The proceedings shed light on the financial dynamics within the law firm and raised questions about the allocation of profits and transparency in financial transactions. The case continues to unfold, and further developments are awaited as the parties present their respective evidence and arguments.
