- 49 -
Respondent’s 11-page motion for entry of decision, with a
15-page supporting memorandum, disclosed to the Court the facts
that had been discovered in respondent’s investigation.
Respondent informed the Court that, before the test case trial,
Sims and McWade had agreed to settle the Thompson cases by
reducing the Thompsons’ deficiencies in amounts sufficient to
compensate the Thompsons for their projected attorney’s fees. As
respondent explained to the Court, Sims and McWade had agreed
with DeCastro that
All settlement refunds in excess of the amounts
provided by the December 1986 agreement would go
ultimately to the benefit of Mr. DeCastro for payment
of his legal fees and costs. Mr. DeCastro would be
paid solely from amounts refunded by the Service to
Thompson. * * * This “New Agreement”, in sum and
substance, if not explicitly, was designed, and
constituted an agreement by Messrs. Sims and McWade to
pay Mr. DeCastro’s legal fees and expenses.22
21(...continued)
indicates that Chicoine and Hallet’s motion to suppress evidence
was pending when McWade offered the 20-percent reduction
settlement to DeCastro in December 1986. Although McWade may
have known of Chicoine and Hallet’s intent to file such a motion,
the motion, in the form of a motion for leave to amend petition,
was not filed until Jan. 12, 1987, after Chicoine and Hallett had
entered their appearances. Any error in this regard, however, is
immaterial, in view of our disposition of this matter.
22On brief, petitioners question the assertions in
respondent’s motion that all settlement refunds “in excess of the
amounts provided in the December 1986 agreement” would go to
DeCastro. This assertion, however, appears to have reflected
respondent’s understanding at the time. Once again, in view of
our disposition of this matter, any error in this respect is
irrelevant.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011