In the case of Mark Waters v. Richard Furlong and Furlong Collins dated July 4, 2023, the plaintiff, Mark Waters, brought an action against the defendants, Richard Furlong and Furlong Collins, for breach of contract and solicitor negligence. Mr. Waters alleged that the defendants had failed to properly advise him of his tax liability resulting from a forgiveness of indebtedness. Mr. Furlong, being the only lawyer in the firm, was referred to as "the defendant." The dispute had arisen when Mr. Waters consulted the defendant after his termination from employment at Gemstar. The plaintiff claimed that he was not adequately informed about who would bear the income tax liability arising from the forgiveness of the loan indebtedness. He asserted that Mr. Furlong had advised him that there would be no tax liability for him on the loan forgiveness. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that he had never advised the plaintiff that no taxes would be payable on the debt forgiveness. He argued that the consultation was primarily about whether the termination letter would absolve Mr. Waters of all outstanding debts owed to Gemstar, and he was not asked about tax implications. The court has dismissed the plaintiff's action against the defendant in the case. The plaintiff failed to prove his allegations of breach of standard of care and breach of contract, as per the reasons provided in the judgment. No specific amount provided in the case regarding financial award.