- 224 -
Mr. DeCastro's legal fees for representing the Thompsons at the
trial of the test cases, by testifying that the Thompson
settlement was attributable to the Thompsons' participation in
the Bauspar program, and by trying to cover up the bases for the
stipulated decisions that were entered by the Court in the
Alexander cases.
Mr. McWade also failed to disclose to the Court his
understanding with Mr. Alexander and allowed Mr. Alexander to
offer misleading testimony to the Court during the trial of the
test cases. Although we are unable to find that Mr. McWade and
Mr. Alexander agreed before the trial to a specific reduction of
the Alexanders' tax liabilities in exchange for Mr. Alexander's
assistance to Mr. McWade during the trial of the test cases, we
are convinced that Mr. McWade and Mr. Alexander had a general
understanding that the Alexanders' tax liabilities would be
reduced. In this regard, Mr. Alexander misled the Court when he
ambiguously answered "Specifically, no." to Mr. Izen's question
at trial whether Mr. Alexander had an agreement with Mr. McWade
to reduce his tax liabilities.99
99 Mr. Alexander's response could be understood as a
statement (consistent with the Court's finding in these cases)
that, although Mr. Alexander did not reach an agreement with
Mr. McWade for a specific reduction in the amount of his tax
deficiencies, he and Mr. McWade had a general understanding that
Mr. Alexander's tax liabilities would be reduced. Considering
the ambiguity in Mr. Alexander's response, it seems surprising
that Mr. Izen did not pursue the matter further. In any event,
by virtue of Mr. McWade's duty of candor toward the Court, see
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3.3, Mr. McWade was
obliged to disclose his understanding with Mr. Alexander to the
Court.
Page: Previous 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011