- 12 -
Additional Attorneys Engaged by Mr. Kersting
Mr. Kersting then engaged attorneys Robert J. Chicoine (Mr.
Chicoine) and Darrell D. Hallett (Mr. Hallett) to represent the
test case petitioners. Messrs. Chicoine and Hallett agreed to do
so with the understanding they would not represent Mr. Kersting.
Early in January 1987, they entered their appearances for the
Dixons and the other test case petitioners and promptly filed
motions to suppress evidence seized in 1981 from Mr. Kersting’s
office.10 Throughout 1987, Messrs. Chicoine and Hallett also
negotiated with Mr. McWade to settle the test cases. They
ultimately reached an oral agreement with Mr. McWade for a
settlement in which respondent would concede 20 percent of the
proposed deficiencies; in letters dated February 9, 1988, they
disclosed this proposed settlement to the test case petitioners
and to non-test-case petitioners who had inquired about the
possibility of a more advantageous settlement. The proposed 20-
percent reduction settlement displeased Mr. Kersting; on February
20, 1988, he wrote to Messrs. Chicoine and Hallett that “I hereby
revoke your appointment as counsel for the test cases”. In April
1988, Messrs. Chicoine and Hallett informed the test case
9(...continued)
order copies of several authorities concerning conflicts of
interest, including Adams v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359 (1985).
10In an Opinion dated Feb. 11, 1988, this Court held that it
lacked power to suppress evidence seized from a third party not
before the Court. See Dixon v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 237 (1988)
(Dixon I).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011