- 223 -
of his settlement, Mr. Cravens could not win or lose and would
not need an attorney to represent him at the trial of the test
cases. In so doing, Mr. McWade foreclosed the possibility that
the Cravenses would become clients of Chicoine and Hallett, and
later, of Mr. Izen, and thereby reduced the effectiveness of
Mr. Cravens' presentations to the Court from the point of view of
all petitioners. The likelihood that Mr. Cravens would have
informed counsel for test case petitioners that his cases had
been settled was also thereby reduced.
Mr. Cravens relied upon Mr. McWade's advice and appeared at
the trial of the test cases without counsel, whereupon he was
informed by Mr. McWade that he would enjoy the better of the Tax
Court decision in the trial of the test cases or the previously
arranged settlement agreement. We have no doubt that Mr. Cravens
would have been better prepared and would have offered a more
complete case had he been represented by counsel at the trial of
the test cases. At a minimum, counsel could have assisted
Mr. Cravens in completing his testimony regarding his motivations
for participating in Kersting programs and his belief that his
promissory notes were valid.
During the trial of the test cases and thereafter, Messrs.
Sims and McWade intentionally misled the Court and the remaining
test case petitioners regarding the status of the Thompson and
Cravens cases. Messrs. Sims and McWade consciously continued
their efforts to mislead the Court during the evidentiary hearing
by denying that the Thompson settlement was a vehicle for paying
Page: Previous 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011