- 170 -
H. Mr. DeCastro's Withdrawal
By order dated April 3, 1996, the Court directed
Mr. DeCastro to show cause why he should not be disqualified from
serving as counsel or otherwise representing the Thompsons at the
evidentiary hearing.71 On April 10, 1996, the Court received a
letter from Mr. DeCastro stating that he had withdrawn his
representation of the Thompsons and that they would retain
substitute counsel to represent them at the evidentiary hearing.
By order dated April 11, 1996, the Court discharged as moot its
order to show cause dated April 3, 1996. Mr. Huestis entered his
appearance on behalf of the Thompsons at the evidentiary hearing.
I. Discovery of Alexander Decisions and Referral to Office of
Inspector General
Shortly before commencement of the evidentiary hearing, the
parties discovered that decisions had been entered in the
Alexander cases eliminating their deficiencies for 1974, 1975,
1976, and 1977.72 On May 10, 1996, Martha Sullivan
(Ms. Sullivan), successor to Mr. Sanchez as Regional Counsel,
Western Region, referred the matter to the OIG. The referral
questioned whether the Alexanders had received a beneficial
71 Again, the Court relied primarily upon ABA Model Rules
of Professional Conduct rules 1.7(b) and 3.7(a) as the bases for
its order.
72 It appears that the Alexander correspondence that had
been attached to Mr. McWade's motion to take Mr. Kersting's
deposition, filed in the test cases on Aug. 25, 1988, piqued
Mr. Sticht's curiosity and led him to request discovery of the
Alexander files of the Internal Revenue Service for the taxable
years 1974-77.
Page: Previous 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011