Robert and Ines M. Gillespie, et al. - Page 30




                                       - 30 -                                         
               A 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.4                        
               In pertinent part, Rule 33(b) provides:                                
                    (b) Effect of Signature:  The signature of counsel                
               * * * constitutes a certificate by the signer that the                 
               signer has read the pleading; that, to the best of the                 
               signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed                     
               after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact                  
               and is warranted by existing law or a good faith                       
               argument for the extension, modification, or reversal                  
               of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any                 
               improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause                        
               unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of                  
               litigation. * * * If a pleading is signed in violation                 
               of this Rule, the Court, upon motion or upon its own                   
               initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it *                 
               * * an appropriate sanction, which may include an order                
               to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the                 

               3(...continued)                                                        
          made the same probabilistic argument in Davis v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 2007-201.                                                        
               4  The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held               
          that a showing of objective bad faith (i.e., recklessness or                
          extreme negligence) is all that is necessary to impose costs on             
          an attorney under sec. 6673(a)(2).  Johnson v. Commissioner, 289            
          F.3d 452, 456 (7th Cir. 2002), affg. 116 T.C. 111 (2001).  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 applicable rules.              






Page:  Previous  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007