Now who could that be? Why, that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson, friend of hapless Technophobe Al (hereinafter sometimes designated or described as “TA”), an attorney who shall remain nameless.

Last month neither TA nor client showed for calendar call. Judge Gustafson ordered client to file a response to IRS’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Neither TA nor client did.

Judge Gustafson thereupon issued an OSC for TA to show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for failing to follow the Court’s rules and orders.

That woke up TA. So he responds on paper.

“Pursuant to Rule 26, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, electronic filing is generally required for all papers filed by counsel in open cases. In his response, [TA] claims that he did not ‘see or receive’ the Court’s order requiring petitioner to file…a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. [TA] further contends that he did not appear at the Court’s Trial Session… because he had been informed that respondent intended to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and he did not have anything to produce.” Order, at p. 1.

Comment is superfluous, at least from me, so I’ll let Judge Gustafson tell the story.

“A practitioner before this Court is required to carry out his or her practice in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association. Rule 201(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Tax Court Rule 202(a)(3) specifically identifies as a ground for discipline any conduct that violates the letter and spirit of the Model Rules. For example, Model Rule 1.1 requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Model Rule 1.3 requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Model Rule 3.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly disobeying court rules and orders. [TA]’s failure to appear and failure to comply with Court orders is inconsistent with the obligations imposed upon him pursuant to the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association.

“[TA] is hereby advised that he should take whatever steps are necessary to avoid such deficiencies in the future, including appropriate continuing legal education courses.” Order, at p. 1.

Nevertheless and notwithstanding the foregoing, Judge Gustafson once again exhibits the quality of which the Sweet Swan of Avon rhapsodized thus: “It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven/ Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:/ It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.” (Citation omitted).

Well, Judge Gustafson orders the long-suffering Clerk of the Court to file TA’s screed as of date of delivery, even though it’s written on paper and not on electrons, and discharges the OSC, letting TA off the hook for the Rule 202(a)(3) chop. Indeed, it blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

PS- Per separate order under same date, TA’s client gets nailed for $161,596.00 in tax plus a Section 6662(a) five-and-ten chop of $32,319.20.

The orders, under the same Docket No. 30464-13, were filed 4/22/15. I omit names and links. TA and client have suffered enough.