retainer's fee and did not always submit his time sheets for billing, a Supreme Court judge was told yesterday.

And two months after he left Mr. Charles Vaucrosson's law firm, invoices showed that $5,000 in bills had not been paid by Mr. Perinchief's clients.

Mr. Perinchief, who now has his own law firm, is suing his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

He began working for the law firm in 1987 as its executive director and senior staff lawyer of community legal services. He was dismissed in September 1990 after having received one month's notice.

He is now demanding six months' salary less the one month notice he received.

Yesterday, lawyer Mr. Steven Hankey said there was no dispute that Mr.

Perinchief was a skilled lawyer, but that there was more to being a good employee than just being a good lawyer.

He said that Mr. Perinchief, while employed at the firm, often: Failed to follow up on outstanding bills; Had a continuing problem with accounts receivable; Failed to obtain retainer's fees from clients: and Did not fill out the daily work memo and send it to the accounts department.

All this was done, said Mr. Hankey, with the knowledge that it was against the firm's practice.

Mr. Perinchief agreed that it would be disaster for the firm if clients were not billed or if they did not pay their bills but he said "in criminal litigation, a retainer is desirable but not always practical.'' And he argued that he was not the firm's only lawyer who was late submitting time sheets and that it only occurred if he was busy on a major trial.

He did accept that hardly any time sheets were submitted to the accounts department in August but he attributed that to the loss of his secretary, Mrs.

Alfreda Rochester, who was on maternity leave.

Mr. Perinchief agreed that unless time sheets were sent to the accounts department, the client could not be billed. And Mr. Hankey pointed out days in November of 1989 when little or no client time was billed.

"The problem is, the firm doesn't know what you were doing because no time was recorded,'' Mr. Hankey said.

Mr. Perinchief said that while working for Vaucrosson's he did a lot of work in Magistrates' Court involving another lawyer's clients and in those instances, his time might not be credited.

The case resumes today with Mr. Perinchief's secretary being examined by his lawyer, Miss Clare Hatcher.

The case is being heard by Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ground.