No, not another consequence of Hurricane Sandy. This is the story of Frank & Suzanne Cardamone, Docket No. 22935-12 (filed 11/2/12). Frank and Suzy didn’t bother to sign their Tax Court petition, but they did get an attorney, A.S., who files notice of appearance and proffers a decision document.

Unfortunately, A.S. notices her appearance after the purported filing of the unsigned petition. She can’t sign on behalf of her clients, says Chief Judge Thornton.

“On September 25, 2012, the Court issued an Order directing petitioners to file, on or before October 15, 2012, an Amendment to Petition ratifying and affirming the petition filed to commence this case. On October 3, 2012, A. S. entered an appearance on behalf of petitioners. On October 22, 2012, the Court received a proposed decision document signed by Ms. S. on behalf of petitioners. That decision cannot be entered, however, until the petition filed to commence this case is properly ratified by petitioners; petitioners’ counsel, having entered her appearance after the date the petition was filed to commence this case, cannot ratify the petition on petitioners’ behalf.” Order, p. 1. (Emphasis in original.)

I do not see why A.S. cannot sign the amended petition nunc pro tunc (“now for then”, as the high-priced lawyers say). She has authority from the Cardamones. Chief Judge Thornton cites no Rule or decision in support of his conclusion. Neither Rule 23 nor Rule 33, as amended this past July, expressly states that a subsequent signature to a pleading is invalid.

Going through this additional step of having the Cardamones sign the “amendment”, rather than letting A.S. sign it and get the decision document entered, just delays matters and wastes resources.

Of course, A.S. should have reviewed the September 25 Order and had her clients sign the amendment in the first place.

Takeaway for attorneys– Check the papers your prospective client gives you and search the Tax Court websites for orders; if you find any, make sure your prospective client complies.