Opinion
11909-22
11-10-2022
WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is not currently scheduled for trial, although petitioner's Reply to the affirmative allegations in respondent's Answer, filed July 6, 2022, is presently due on or before November 30, 2022.
On October 4, 2022, Jay R. Weill, Steven M. Katz, and Travis W. Thompson (petitioner's attorneys) filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel seeking leave to withdraw as counsel for petitioner in this case. Petitioner's attorneys state in their motion that respondent has no objection to the granting of their motion. On October 5, 2022, petitioner's attorneys filed a First Supplement to Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. (We will hereinafter refer to the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, as supplemented, as the "motion to withdraw".) On October 31, 2022, petitioner filed an Opposition to Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, accompanied by a Declaration of Waukeen McCoy in support of petitioner's opposition. In response to petitioner's opposition, on November 1, 2022, a Declaration of Jay R. Weill was filed.
It is well settled that a motion filed pursuant to Rule 24(c) presents an issue which is within the Court's jurisdiction and discretion to decide. Fry v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 368, 372 (1989). Balancing the interests of the various parties to this matter, we are persuaded that the motion to withdraw should be granted. It appears that, due to various disputes which have arisen between petitioner and petitioner's attorneys, the attorney-client relationship has broken down. We therefore doubt that petitioner's interests would be served by requiring counsel to remain in this case despite their express desire to withdraw. Given that this case is not presently scheduled for trial, petitioner will suffer no prejudice in that petitioner will have ample opportunity to hire replacement counsel. Furthermore, in light of the decision to grant the motion to withdraw, we will extend the due date for petitioner to file the Reply to the affirmative allegations in respondent's Answer.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, as supplemented, is granted. It is further
ORDERED that the due date for petitioner's Reply to Answer is extended to February 28, 2023.