I’ve often chronicled here Judge David Gustafson’s obliging ways. He gives us yet another example, a “how to” for dealing with fractious and captious clients, in Brian L. Baxter & Rita C. Baxter, Docket No. 13302-23, filed 11/25/25. Brian & Rita had problems with their attorneys.

Attorney One files the petition, but backs out because of “disagreement on the course of litigation and proposed arguments for trial,” and no one objects, so Judge Gustafson lets Attorney One out. Order, at p. 1.

If client is dissatisfied with your advice, wanting you to take a losing path, bail. Remember, if you let client direct you and you lose, you’re to blame despite any written warnings you may have given them. They were right and you were scared or clumsy or both.

Brian & Rita don’t enter the stipulation process, so Judge Gustafson gives them an OSC to respond in writing to IRS counsel’s proposed stip or have the facts deemed stipulated (Rule 91). No response, so Judge Gustafson tries for a phoneathon, without result. So there follows an OSC at no extra charge, requiring Brian & Rita to bukh or be tossed for nonprosecution.

Going to the bullpen, Brian & Rita bring in Attorney Two. Attorney Two telephones chambers twice, stating he’s been retained.

Except.

Attorney Two is not admitted to Tax Court and hasn’t filed Entry of Appearance. No problem; Judge Gustafson will oblige.

“In response to his messages, we issued in this case an order that (1) gave instructions as to the attorney’s possible representation, (2) extended sua sponte… the deadline for petitioners to telephone chambers and file a response to our order to show cause, and (3) directed ‘that if petitioners do wish to retain an attorney to assist them in complying with that…deadline, then they shall retain him in time for him to file his notice of entry of appearance before that date.’ The attorney did not enter an appearance, and the Baxters have never placed any call or made any filing in compliance with our second OSC.” Order, at p. 2.

But Attorney Two, admitted to Tax Court or not, knows not to ghost a Court.

“Rather [the day before the adjourned return date on the latest OSC, Attorney Two] spoke by telephone with chambers staff. The attorney said that he would not be representing the Baxters in their case. He stated to staff that he had spoken with the Baxters, (1) telling them his reasons for not representing them, (2) reminding them of their… due date with the Court, and (3) advising them that he was going to call and notify the Court of his conversation with them.” Order, at p. 2.

Taishoff says both attorneys played it right.

But Judge Gustafson is obliging to the end, even though ghosted by petitioners.

“For the information of the Baxters, we point out that, under Rule 162, ‘Any motion to vacate or revise a decision … shall be filed within 30 days after the decision has been entered ….’ We do not encourage the Baxters to attempt reconsideration, since we cannot know (1) whether they have any excuse that they might proffer for their repeated failure to comply with our orders, and (2) whether there is any merit to their position that could overcome ‘[t]he apparent outcome of this case’. We would not expect to entertain any motion under Rule 162 that was not timely filed or did not address both these points.” Order, at p. 3.