I’m not talking about traveling through the Snows of Yesterday here in The Big Apple, I’m fast-forwarding to today, 3/6/15, wherein various of my fellow-craft at the Bar ain’t doin’ so hot.

First up, William P. Rafferty & Carol A. Rafferty, Docket No. 13104-13, filed 3/6/15. Carole settled as to her beef, and Will wants innocence, but that’s not the issue.

Carole and Will have the same attorney.

Judge Ashford, new to Tax Court but wise in the ways of legal ethics, isn’t amused. But she has a great legal vocabulary.

In a teleconference, “…petitioners’ counsel stated that… petitioner Carol A. Rafferty and respondent filed a Stipulation of Settled Issues as to petitioner Carol A. Rafferty, and that petitioner William P. Rafferty planned to file for Innocent Spouse Relief under Section 6015. Petitioners’ counsel also noted that he recently filed petitions, one on behalf of each petitioner, for petitioners’ 2011 tax year (Docket Nos. 17621-14, 18233-14). In Docket No. 18233-14, petitioner William P. Rafferty similarly claims that he is entitled to Innocent Spouse Relief. In addition to a continuance, petitioners’ counsel and respondent would like the above-captioned case to be consolidated with the recently-filed cases. This Division, however, does not have jursidication [sic, but I love it!] over the recently-filed cases and, under Rule 24(g) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure, it appears that petitioners’ counsel has a conflict of interest representing both petitioners. Thus, it is in fact premature for the Court to consolidate the cases. Pursuant to Rule 24(g), in order to obviate the potential conflict or other violation of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, petitioners’ counsel should take whatever remedy necessary prior to filing a Motion to Consolidate.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge, I look forward to many more examples of jursidication.

Next is Southland Spine and Rehabilitation Medical Center, Inc., Docket No. 9021-14, filed 3/6/15. I’ll spare you the “they’ve got your back” pun–no, I won’t. I said it was a tough day for lawyers.

Unfortunately, Judge Goeke must deny Attorney Daniel Layton the relief that we all so many times have desired but of which we were likewise deprived.

“…Daniel Layton filed a Motion for Continuance and a Motion to Withdraw Counsel Pietro E. Canestrelli and Erik K. Dodd. Petitioner’s counsel is advised that the motion to withdraw is improper as one counsel cannot withdraw another counsel.” Order, at p. 1.

You can throw your fellow-sufferers under the bus, or kick them to the curb, but you can’t withdraw them. Oh, Mr. Layton, how I wish you’d won that one.