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:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007