This means that information obtained by an accountant under a Kovel agreement should be distinguished from the information the accountant collects as an accountant or as a different accountant. Keep things as separate and well documented as possible. This may include the use of another audit firm for audit or other work where possible. If there is an existing relationship between the accountant and the client, it may be more difficult to support the idea that the accountant was hired by the lawyer to assist the lawyer in his or her legal work. In this case, the lawyer may seek out and hire a new accountant; This helps to ensure that the accountant works for the lawyer and provides clear lines to display the information the accountant learned during the legal representation, instead of information that a long-time accountant might otherwise have known. In addition, the lawyer, in order to prove a Kovel agreement, can pay the accountant`s fees or approve at least all fees before payment. However, in all cases where a client attempts to protect the advice of an accountant under Kovel, such protection is uncertain, even if the parties have entered into a formal agreement. Members should be aware of the limitations of a proposed agreement. In June 2008, the University of Michigan Press split from the independent British publishing house Pluto Press, for which it worked as an American distributor.
  The decision was taken following a series of events related to the release of Kovel overcoming Zionism`s 2007 book, which stateed that “the creation of Israel was a mistake and calls for the adoption of the “one state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which Israelis and Palestinians would form a new country without a Jewish character.  According to University spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham, the University of Michigan Press stopped publishing the book in the fall of 2007 after “serious questions” were raised about the book of “members of the university community.”  Later in September, the University of Michigan Press announced that it would resume the spread of overspending Zionism after receiving complaints that it was censoring.  The Executive Committee of the University of Michigan Press said in a statement that while it has “deep reservations about overcoming Zionism,” it would be a blow to freedom of expression to remove the book from distribution on that basis. We conclude that we must not fail to respect our distribution agreement on the basis of our reservations about the content of a single book. Such a direction raises both Questions about the First Amendment and concerns about the emergence of censorship. As members of the university community, committed to academic freedom and open debate from different points of view, the Board of Directors strongly supports freedom of expression and even the appearance of censorship. In this case, legal and valuable considerations lead us to the decision to resume the distribution of the book.  At the same time, the University of Michigan Press stated that “the manuscript, had it passed the standard verification process of the University of Michigan Press, would not have recommended publication.”