I am well aware that we all make mistakes, some really critical. A staple of every CLE ethics and avoiding professional liability course is the calendar warning–diary every critical date in two (or more) places.

The attorney in STJ Armen’s designated hitter Peter J. Leon a.k.a. Pierre Leon, Docket No. 2789-14S, filed 3/12/15, misdiaried the trial date.

Bad, but he has other problems.

Pete filed his own petition, never stated anything about having an attorney, and then did nothing: never sent in a change of address, never Branertoned, stipulated, filed a pretrial brief or showed up at the calendar call, even though given the usual bold-faced warning that failure to show means you lose and IRS wins, and a voicemail from IRS warning that IRS would be seeking to toss Pete for non-prosecution.

At no time did any attorney, Tax Court admittee or not, file an Entry of Appearance.

IRS moved for dismissal for want of prosecution, and got it.

Comes now Mr L (I will not name the attorney, as is my practice) and moves to reconsider. Mr L says he misdiaried the case for February 5, not February 2, and never got notice from IRS that the trial was February 2.

STJ Armen is usually The Judge With A Heart. Not today.

“Mr. L’s complaint that he did not receive ‘any reminder notice’ is unavailing . Respondent is under no obligation to remind an attorney to show up for trial. Further, Mr. L did not subscribe the petition, nor did he ever file an entry of appearance; accordingly, he was not served by the Court nor was respondent obliged under the Court’s Rules to serve him. Because Mr. L is not counsel of record in this case, the Court will strike his motion.

“But even if Mr. L’s motion were not stricken, the Court would deny it. Although it may be unfortunate if Mr. L ’inadvertently diaried the matter for February 5, 2015’ rather than February 2, 2015, the fact of the matter is that it was petitioner, and not Mr. L, who was required to appear in court on February 2, 2015. And petitioner was repeatedly advised by the Court, as well as by respondent, that the trial session was scheduled to begin on February 2, 2015, and that his case might be dismissed if he failed to appear at that time. Petitioner failed to act in a responsible manner, and he must now accept the consequences.” Order, at p.4.

No reconsideration, Pete. Further comment is superfluous.