Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al - Page 107




                                       - 188 -                                        

               Mr. Bradt asserted that his letter to Mr. Kersting was                 
          subject to the attorney-client privilege.  Mr. Bradt declined to            
          disclose how he had obtained a copy of Mr. Sticht's letter to               
          Ms. Fisher.                                                                 
          Pursuant to the Court's order excluding witnesses from the                  
          courtroom, Mr. Bradt had not been in the courtroom when either              
          Ms. Fisher or Mr. O'Neill had testified.82 Mr. Izen admitted that           
          he had disclosed Ms. Fisher's testimony to Mr. Bradt so that he             
          could prepare Mr. Kersting to testify in rebuttal of Ms. Fisher's           
          testimony.  Similarly, Mr. Jones admitted that he had disclosed             
          Mr. O'Neill's testimony to Mr. Bradt in order to prepare Mr.                
          Bradt to testify in rebuttal.  Mr. Sticht suggested that Mr.                
          Bradt's letter would tend to inflame Mr. Kersting against Ms.               
          Fisher.83                                                                   


          82  The Court had ruled that Mr. Bradt would not be allowed                 
          in the courtroom until Mr. Kersting had testified.                          
          83  Mr. Sticht's receipt and disclosure to the Court of                     
          Mr. Bradt's letter to Mr. Kersting raise interesting questions              
          concerning the professional responsibilities of attorneys.                  
          Compare Committee on Professional Responsibility, Ethical                   
          Obligations Arising Out of an Attorney's Receipt of Inadvertently           
          Disclosed Information, 50 The Record of the Association of the              
          Bar of the City of New York 660 (1995), with Committee on                   
          Professional Responsibility, The Attorney's Duties to Report the            
          Misconduct of Other Attorneys and to Report Fraud on a Tribunal,            
          47 The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New              
          York 905 (1992).  The disclosures by Messrs. Izen and Jones that            
          were prompted by the introduction of Mr. Bradt's letter also                
          raise questions of possible conflict between the operation of               
          Rule 145 and the need to prepare a witness to testify and bring             
          documents in response to a subpoena duces tecum.  Compare Berry             
          Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 584, 609-611 (1995),                
          affd. on other issues without published opinion 142 F.3d 442 (9th           
          Cir. 1998), with Smith v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1349 (1989), and            
                                                             (continued...)           

Page:  Previous  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011