- 14 -
All litigants, especially members of the bar who
have received training in law and professional
responsibility, are expected to read the cases cited
for the Court, to assure that those cases remain
current, and to advance only those legal arguments that
are warranted by existing law, by nonfrivolous argument
for its extension, modification, or reversal, or by the
establishment of new law. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(b)(2); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th
Cir. 1986) (“The purpose of sections 6673 and 6702,
like the purpose of Rules 11 and 38 and of sec. 1927
[of 28 U.S.C.], is to induce litigants to conform their
behavior to the governing rules regardless of their
subjective beliefs. Groundless litigation diverts the
time and energies of judges from more serious claims;
it imposes needless costs on other litigants. Once the
legal system has resolved a claim, judges and lawyers
must move on to other things. They cannot endlessly
rehear stale arguments.”).
Mr. Jewett asserted, when the case was submitted, that he is
proceeding in good faith. His failure to consult or address the
established law renders his assertion untenable. Unlike counsel
in Takaba v. Commissioner, supra, and in Edwards v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-149, however, he did not extend these proceedings
by meaningless motions and other delays. (Perhaps that is why
respondent did not request a penalty in this case.) Determining
the amount of excessive costs in this case would require further
proceedings and would add to the delays already caused by the
frivolous arguments asserted by petitioners and Mr. Jewett.
Other grounds for sanctions might also be considered. Cf.
Matthews v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-577, affd. without
published opinion 106 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 1996); Leach v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-215. See generally Chambers v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011