- 121 -
various Kersting programs and documents regarding each of the
test case petitioners that he represented. On the basis of his
analysis, Mr. Izen determined that the test case petitioners that
he represented would be representative of the nontest cases.
On April 29, 1988, Mr. Izen filed a motion to compel
Chicoine and Hallett to provide him with the client files and
papers of certain test case petitioners he represented. On
June 6, 1988, Mr. Chicoine filed an objection to Mr. Izen's
motion, asserting that Chicoine and Hallett had returned to
Mr. Izen's clients all original documents that had been provided
to Chicoine and Hallett. By order dated July 11, 1988, the Court
denied Mr. Izen's motion as moot.
From the beginning of his representation of the test case
petitioners until late 1995, Mr. Izen's fees were paid by check
signed by Mr. Kersting and written on bank accounts of
corporations controlled by Mr. Kersting. Commencing December
1995, Mr. Izen's fees have been paid from a "pool" or "fund"
contributed by a group of test and nontest case petitioners.
E. The Kersting Deposition (October 1988)
On July 8, 1988, respondent served Mr. Kersting and the test
case petitioners with a notice of deposition pursuant to Rule 75.
On July 25, 1988, Mr. Kersting served Mr. McWade with an
objection stating, inter alia, that Mr. Kersting should not be
deposed because he had reason to believe that he was under
criminal investigation. Mr. Kersting's objection included
Page: Previous 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011