Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
               Shortly after the issuance of Dixon V, the Hongsermeiers and           
          the PH petitioners filed separate requests with the Court of                
          Appeals for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.  The                        
          Hongsermeiers’ request relates solely to services performed by              
          Minns and Lawfinders, and the PH petitioners’ request relates               
          solely to services performed by Porter & Hedges.  As filed, both            
          appellate fee requests relied exclusively on section 7430.                  
               Rather than filing a fee request with the Court of Appeals             
          on behalf of the Youngs, Izen objected to petitioners’ fee                  
          requests.9  Izen’s primary objection was that petitioners had not           
          paid or incurred the amounts requested:                                     
                    In actuality, Mr. Binder’s motion fails to reveal                 
               the true clients in interest who have paid him fees to                 
               represent their interests on appeal.  These “real                      
               clients in interest” are the same clients represented                  
               by Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. in the appeal styled Barbara L.                
               Adair, Et Al, v. Commissioner * * *.                                   

          9 Izen is not the only attorney in these proceedings who                    
          was, at least initially, hostile to petitioners’ appellate fee              
          requests.  In a filing relating to the evidentiary hearing                  
          required to implement the primary mandate of Dixon V, Jones (who            
          would subsequently file his own appellate fee request on behalf             
          of the participating nontest case petitioners he represents, see            
          infra note 12) remarked:                                                    
               Test case counsel, exclusive of Mr. Izen, charged                      
               clients in excess of $500,000 to copy Mr. Izen’s, Mr.                  
               Jones’, and Mr. Sticht’s prior work from the                           
               evidentiary hearing [held in 1996 and 1997] without                    
               adding one new idea which had a substantial effect on                  
               the Dixon appeal.  These taxpayers cannot afford to pay                
               expensive lawyers by the hour in order to get the                      
               relief they so justly deserve.                                         

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011