I said in my blogpost “Not Always A Phone Call”, 7/14/14, that the riposte would be interesting. And it is.

Remember Vandy, counsel for Brent T. Wiedbusch & Christina Wiedbusch, Docket No. 15257-13? No? Then see my aforecited blogpost hereinabove referred to, as my high-priced and paid-by-the-word colleagues would put it.

Vandy got a chance to respond to Brent and Christina, who aspersed Vandy’s conduct of their case. Here’s the story: Brent T. Wiedbusch & Christina Wiedbusch, Docket No. 15257-13, filed 7/23/14.

And here’s Judge Gale, who wanted to know the whole story: “After reviewing [Vandy’s] July 17 Response, we are satisfied that, for purposes of resolving his Motion for Leave to Withdraw, petitioners had knowledge of, and had consented to, the contents of the Petition. We are also satisfied that petitioners’ other allegations concerning [Vandy’s] representation of them provide no grounds for denying his motion.” Order, at p. 1.

But for you advocates who seek to bail, here’s some hints from a footnote: “In petitioners’ Response to First Supplement to Motion for Leave to Withdraw, they admitted signing an engagement agreement with … [Vandy’s] employer, which provided that [Vandy] withdraw from representing petitioners if they failed to reach a settlement with respondent’s Office of Appeals and decided to proceed to trial. Such agreements are not binding on this Court, and in appropriate circumstances the Court may decline to permit withdrawal where such an arrangement would unduly burden the taxpayer, the Commissioner, or the Court. Nonetheless, in this case respondent did not object to a continuance and the Court granted it.” Order, at p. 2, footnote 1.

So bail early, bail often, but don’t hang up your soon-to-be-ex client, IRS, or Judge Gale and his colleagues.