- 60 -
We do not intend by our ruling to stifle the enthusiasm or chill
the creativity of counsel for taxpayers in this Court. We simply
expect petitioner’s counsel to read the authorities she cites for
us, to perform sufficient legal research to assure that her
arguments are not bogus, and to explain the reasoning behind her
arguments.
We recognize that petitioner originally appeared in this
case by filing his petition pro se. Petitioner’s counsel
appeared on his behalf shortly after this case was set for trial.
Some of the frivolous arguments that petitioner’s counsel
advanced during and after trial were originally contained in the
petition, such as the “Delpit” issue and the validity of the
trusts for Federal income tax purposes. Others were added after
her appearance, such as the “Scar” and “Agency” issues. We, of
course, should not and do not hold petitioner’s counsel
responsible for positions taken by petitioner before counsel’s
appearance. However, once counsel appears in the case, counsel
has an obligation to proceed in accordance with the applicable
rules of professional conduct. An attorney cannot advance
frivolous arguments to this Court with impunity, even if those
arguments were initially developed by the client. Petitioner’s
counsel is liable only for the results of her own improper
conduct, and is not liable for actions taken by petitioner before
her appearance in the case.
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011