- 43 -
decision regarding case priorities. Such a showing, absent
evidence regarding the then prevailing circumstances, paints only
a partial picture, however. To complete the picture, we examine
the circumstances as they existed during the period to determine
whether respondent’s priority structure completely explains
respondent’s inaction.
Rowland testified, and we found, that the Cincinnati office
was responsible for cases calendared for trial at Cincinnati and
Columbus, Ohio. Thus, during the first period the primary
attention of the Cincinnati office was focused on cases other
than the Barrister cases.
Rowland testified, and we found, that she maintained her
normal caseload, about 100-120 cases, in addition to working on
her share of the Barrister cases, about 75 in number. Rowland
was thus managing a caseload during the period that was
significantly larger than her normal caseload. Rowland
testified, and we found, that (1) the settlement letters
generated a significant and generally prompt response from
Barrister taxpayers, more than half the Barrister taxpayers who
responded to the settlement offer submitted their verification
information within the requested 10 days; (2) she fielded many
phone calls from Barrister taxpayers regarding the settlement;
and (3) it took an average of 26 calendar days to process the
settlement of a Barrister case. On these facts, we conclude that
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011