months before he was fired, his former employer admitted yesterday.

However, Mr. Charles Vaucrosson told Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ground, Mr. Perinchief was only given a raise after he promised he would produce an income of $200,000 per annum for the firm.

"I received monthly reports on lawyers' standing,'' he said. "On the information I received, Mr. Perinchief was not meeting his target, he was falling short. I kept receiving reports that his time sheets were still not going down on a daily basis and in fact, quite often they were a week or two weeks late.'' Mr. Perinchief has alleged that he was wrongfully dismissed from the firm in 1990 with only one month's notice. He now has his own law firm and is demanding five months salary from Mr. Vaucrosson. He insists that he should have been given six months notice.

Through lawyer Mr. Steven Hankey, the firm has alleged that Mr. Perinchief was often behind in his time sheets -- administrative work necessary for the firm to bill clients.

Yesterday, Mr. Vaucrosson said there was no contract regarding Mr.

Perinchief's notice if he were to be dismissed or if he quit and that he thought six weeks was reasonable notice.

Mr. Vaucrosson said that before Mr. Perinchief received the raise from $1,000 per week to $1,300, he assured him that he would be responsible for receiving cash fees and collecting accounts.

He said he spoke with the firm's comptroller, Mr. Stephen Gibbons who was against the increase but Mr. Perinchief said he needed the additional income because he had a wife and children in Canada and his wife was undertaking full-time university education.

But Mr. Perinchief's lawyer, Miss Clare Hatcher asked if it were not the case that her client had promised to bill $200,000 of work in the year but had not promised he would collect it during that period.

Mr. Vaucrosson agreed that up to 70 percent of Mr. Perinchief's work was legal aid, not as lucrative as that involving private clients.

But he stressed that Mr. Perinchief knew what was expected of him, that he had to produce in order to make a profit for the firm.

He said that at the August 23 meeting, he gave Mr. Perinchief notice that he would be let go. He said the fact that Mr. Perinchief's secretary would be coming back was not an issue.

"I told him (the administrative work) was his responsibility,'' he said. "As far as I was concerned he had been giving a notice of termination. I did not at any time indicate that I would reconsider his situation.

"She could not solve his low income, she could not reconstruct his billings because he simply had not done what he promised he could do.'' The case resumes today.