- 52 -
June 24, 1992, when, on behalf of “about one-hundred
Petitioners”, Messrs. O’Donnell and Jones wrote to respondent,
noting “an ethical concern regarding the impropriety of two
settlement offers * * * secretly extended to Mr. Cravans [sic]
and Mr. Thompson who testified for the I.R.S. at the Dixon
Trial.” The letter further advised of a motion to remand
“pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as to the cases on
Appeal”.
In August 1992, respondent presented a full report of the
misconduct to this Court as it had been disclosed and developed
at that time. Although this report was not served upon Messrs.
O’Donnell and Jones directly, it came to the attention of Mr.
Sticht, who joined them in representing the Cerasolis and who was
aware of that report in September 1992. On September 29, 1992,
Mr. Sticht’s motion of petitioner-intervenors for leave to
intervene stated:
On or about August 20, 1992, the respondent filed
its (a) Notice of Objection To Petitioner’s Motion, (b)
Motion For Entry Of Decision, and (c) Memorandum Of
Points And Authorities * * * . Respondent’s motion
described the circumstances surrounding the previously
disclosed “ostensible contingent settlement” * * * .
In January 1993, respondent sent two separate copies of the
renewed 7-percent reduction settlement offer letter to
petitioners, in care of their attorneys. In that letter,
respondent informed petitioners that two test case petitioners
had entered into settlement agreements with the Service before
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011