No, not an off-topic essay about existential angst (although who knows how low this my blog may sink before I’m done with it?), this is about V, an attorney subject to State Court discipline. Name omitted, of course; said attorney has already suffered enough.

Too often, Tax Court admittees who get wigged or gigged by other tribunals never tell the Glasshouse Gang. But V did tell Tax Court, asking to be relieved in a pending case because of the State Court suspension order.

Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda does credit V that far, but that wasn’t far enough for Rule 202(b).

“A member of the Bar of this Court is required to report to the Chair of the Court’s Committee on Admissions, Ethics, and Discipline, in writing, of suspension by another Court of whose Bar such attorney is a member no later than 30 days after entry of the order of discipline. Rule 202(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Although [V] did not report her suspension to the Chair, she did report the suspension to the Court, in writing, within, 30 days of her suspension from the practice of law….” Order, at p. 1.

OK, the Rule says what it says. But who is the Chair? You won’t find him or her on the Tax Court website. The website Court directory lists admissions with a telephone number, but seems to restrict its function to “(A)dmissions procedures for practice before the Tax Court and practitioner access for DAWSON.” General questions go to Public Affairs.

So to whom and where does the disciplined practitioner, smarting from the wounds righteously administered, direct the notice to the Chair in writing? Or did Neil Diamond get it right fifty-five (count ’em, fifty-five) years ago?