Attorney-at-Law

INGENUITY AND WHIMSY

In Uncategorized on 08/21/2023 at 16:03

Confronted by two (count ’em, two) IRS attorneys seeking to exit Desmond McGuire & Cory Lynne Brame, et al., Docket Nos. 25461-16, 22725-17, 11882-18, 15581-18, 5689-23, filed 8/21/23, Judge Ronald L. (” Ingenuity”) Buch rescues them, displaying a certain whimsy I’d never seen before in his usually sober style.

And I’ve listed all five (count ’em, five) docket numbers, because they are material.

“These five cases are consolidated. Counsel for the Commissioner includes Mr. S and Mr. H. As is apparent from the various documents that were filed, Mr. S and Mr. H are withdrawing from these cases. They attempted to removed [sic] themselves by filing seven separate notices of withdrawal as counsel, each of which was filed across all of these consolidated cases. Six of these were filed by or on behalf of Mr. S. Each bore a single docket number. And as a savvy reader did the math may have already realized, docket numbers were duplicated (see index numbers 30 and 33, and indices 31 and 35). In addition, although each of these notices of withdrawal was electronically filed in all of these consolidated cases, none of the notices of withdrawal filed by or on behalf of Mr. S included docket number 2589-23 in its caption. As for Mr. H, his notice of withdrawal of counsel was electronically filed in the lead case and across all of these consolidated cases (which is proper), but the caption only bore the docket number for the lead case.” Order, at p. 1. (Names omitted).

Apparently, Messrs. S and H perpetrated these delictions without reference to the announcement of across-the-board consolidated case filings; see my blogpost “All Together Now, One Two Three” 7/5/23. And see Practitioner Training Guide at pp. 33-37.

One more thing. “As for the substance of these withdrawals of counsel, they all recite that counsel withdraws, but go on to state that ‘[n]otice of the substitution’ as [sic] been given to opposing counsel. But there is no substitution; these are withdrawals.” Order, at p. 1.

Notice of substitution of counsel cannot be filed on an across-the-board basis; see Practitioner Training Guide at p. 34. Separate checks, y’know. See my blogpost thus entitled.

Judge Ingenuity Buch tells the hardlaboring clerks to clean this up by withdrawing the outgoers.

  1. Docket No. 2589-23 has nothing to do with these suspects. I think the judge meant 5689-23.

    Like

  2. Mr Kamman, Indeed. The proofreading in Tax Court orders and opinions has deteriorated.

    Like

Leave a reply to taishofflaw Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.