-20-
Petitioners put great weight on various documents that Ms.
Miller filed with the Court on May 13, 2003, which stated that
Mr. Kauffman was no longer authorized to represent petitioners.
We believe that Ms. Miller made these representations in good
faith, advising the Court of the situation as she then understood
it, on the basis of information that she had recently received
(i.e., that the Gazis had retained Mr. Kell and fired Mr.
Kauffman) but that would shortly prove to be incorrect. Far from
supporting petitioners’ allegations that Ms. Miller sought to
perpetrate a fraud on the Court, these statements reinforce our
perception that Ms. Miller’s actions in these cases have been
consistent with her responsibilities as an officer of this Court.
Especially after the telephonic conference with the Court on May
14 and subsequent telephonic conferences between Mr. Kauffman and
Mr. Gazi, one of which included Ms. Miller, it became apparent to
all concerned that Mr. Kell had entered no appearance in these
cases, that he was unlikely to do so before the May 19 trial
session, and that Mr. Gazi continued to deal with Mr. Kauffman as
petitioners’ counsel. Thereafter, Ms. Miller acted reasonably,
in good faith, and in accordance with Mr. Kauffman’s presumptive
authority as petitioners’ counsel of record, in dealing with Mr.
Kauffman as petitioners’ authorized representative.
Indeed, on brief, petitioners seem to acknowledge that, at
least throughout the period immediately before the May 19, 2003,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011