Laura K. Davis, et al. - Page 32
- 32 -
and each is entitled to a portion of some wholesale settlement.
That Mr. Jones does indeed take a wholesale approach to
representing clients before this Court is supported by his
request that we take notice that, during the three trial sessions
of the Tax Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, between December 2004 and
February 2006, Mr. Jones and his clients settled 67 cases,
agreeing to make payments of $2,564,788 with respect to
$11,067,835 of claimed liabilities.6
The difficulty with Mr. Jones’s wholesale approach, and the
reason we believe that he intentionally abused the judicial
process, is that, in taking that approach, Mr. Jones violated the
well-known duty of an attorney before this Court to insure that
there is merit to every case that he brings before the Court.
That duty is imposed on Mr. Jones both by our Rules and by the
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules), which, by
Rule 201(a), govern his practice before this Court.7
6 That Mr. Jones takes a wholesale approach in representing
clients before the Court is also evidenced by the fact that he
made the same probabilistic argument in Gillespie v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-202.
7 As discussed in the text, supra, the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit requires only a showing of recklessness (not a
showing of subjective bad faith) before assessing monetary
sanctions under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927. Red Carpet Studios Div. of
Source Advantage, Ltd. v. Sater, 465 F.3d 642, 646 (6th Cir.
2006). If Mr. Jones were to claim a lack of familiarity with our
rules of practice and the ABA Model Rules of Professional
Conduct, we would conclude that he acted recklessly in
representing petitioners before the Court in ignorance of
Page: 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Last modified: November 10, 2007