I will spare Chief Clerk Servoss any correspondence from me anent Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley’s proposed amendments to the Rules. Rather than offer my comments and suggestions for embalming in an administrative record that, more likely than not, will never see the light of day, I can secure a wider audience for them on my own account, right here.

Today I revert yet again to Rule 24, untouched by Ch J Mighty Mo’s latest effort.

Here’s Tumi Staffing, Inc., Docket No. 8667-22L, filed 4/25/22. And here’s why Rule 24 should be brought to the end of the Eighteenth Century, when law firms first in the courtroom bloomed in Our Fair City.

“When a petition is electronically filed with the Court, the combination of the username and password of the individual eFiling the petition serves as the signature of the individual filing the petition. If the petition is being filed by multiple practitioners, the Petition should be signed by the additional practitioners. However,  review shows that the petition bears a stylized signature of counsel Jaime Vasquez and does not bear signatures of counsels Adrian Ochoa and Victor Viser. The Tax Court’s procedures require at a minimum a digital image of an actual signature or use of an authentication program. See DAWSON User Guides on the Court’s website, http://www.ustaxcourt.gov. If petitioner’s counsels wish to be recognized as counsel of record in this case, it will be necessary at this juncture to electronically file an entry of appearance on behalf of petitioner in accordance with Rule 24 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioners’ counsel may obtain an Entry of Appearance form under ‘Case Related Forms’ on the Tax Court’s website at http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/case_related_forms.html.” Order, at p. 1.

Of course, all Tax Court regulars know the three attorneys hereinabove referred to are on the team of a well-known and well-regarded tax litigation law firm.

So why no law firm entry of appearance form?

With a firm entry of appearance, a single click can enter all of its USTC admitted attorneys and appoint a lead attorney for all communications. It will be the duty of the lead attorney to arrange for any individual or team actions in the case, including making and responding to motions, making any necessary appearances (in-person or Zoomgov), conducting phoneathons, covering discovery, and anything else.

Whenever a client engages or retains a law firm, retainer and engagement agreements come from the law firms, not any individual attorney.

Lawyers take vacations, fall ill, have family emergencies, take family leave, attend CLE courses and conventions, are working on more than one matter at a time, have appearances scheduled at the same date and time for more than one case. Anyone who has ever been in a law firm knows that s/he may be called upon at any time to “cover” for a colleague with less than ten minutes’ notice.

Every other court I know of recognizes this, and lets any admitted attorney in a firm cover a case.

Why is Tax Court different?