It was obviously adopted as a benefit to the pro se or pro bono, so that a written statement (with any necessary exhibits) may substitute for personal attendance at a motion hearing. Multiple motions may be made and heard years before trial; Rule 50(c) was adopted before remote hearings became commonplace. A pro se of limited means, or a pro bono with no payday, should not have to travel to be heard.

Except.

Lola M. Hussey, Docket No. 1870-24L, filed 4/28/26, submitted a Rule 50(c) written statement in support of her Rule 161 reconsideration motion. And lost.

“Counsel for respondent appeared, objected to the relief requested in the motion, and offered point-by-point responses to the arguments advanced in the motion.” Order, at p. 1.

Now STJ Lewis (“A Name for the Ages”) Carluzzo doesn’t tell us what arguments tipped the scales, or how Lola’s arguments fell short. Without facts, I won’t speculate that Lola’s personal presence and response would have made any difference. Her past record certainly doesn’t so indicate. See my blogposts “Milk Run,” 12/26/25, and “Milking the Milk Run,” 2/11/26.

But IRS certainly has poured resources into a case that looks, at least superficially on the past record, like a walkover.

So practitioners might want to consider a personal appearance at a motion hearing, even if meager resources are stretched thinner.

As the Metropolitan Opera Company puts it “The Voice Must Be Heard.”