Opinion
17291-14L
02-01-2023
ERIC SCHWARTZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Juan F. Vasquez, Judge
On December 21, 2022, the Court issued its Supplemental Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion. The Court has not yet entered a decision in this case.
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed by petitioner's counsel, Karen J. Lapekas, on January 3, 2023. According to Ms. Lapekas, respondent has no objection to her Motion. However, she was unable to ascertain petitioner's views. By Order filed January 4, 2023, we directed petitioner to file a response to Ms. Lapekas's Motion. Thereafter, petitioner timely filed a Response objecting to the Motion and requesting additional time to file a motion for reconsideration of findings or opinion pursuant to Rule 161. By Order filed January 25, 2023, we extended petitioner's time to file a motion for reconsideration to April 10, 2023, and directed Ms. Lapekas to file a reply to petitioner's Response on or before March 27, 2023. Ms. Lapekas filed a Reply to petitioner's Response on January 26, 2023.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Rule 24(c) governs how counsel of record withdraws from a case. An attorney's request to withdraw is within the Court's jurisdiction and discretion to decide. See Fry v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 368, 372-76 (1989). When considering whether to grant a motion to withdraw, the Court must balance the interests of all those affected, including petitioner, respondent, the attorney seeking to withdraw, and the Court. Id. at 375. A decision on such a question turns on the facts and circumstances present in each particular case. Id. Moreover, such a decision has ethical implications which should be taken into account in order to maintain harmony between our Rules and the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules). See id. at 372-73; Rule 201 ("Practitioners before the Court shall carry on their practice in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Model Rules.").
After carefully reviewing Ms. Lapekas's Motion, petitioner's Response, and Ms. Lapekas's Reply, we are convinced they have a fundamental disagreement about the appropriate path forward in this matter. The Model Rules authorize withdrawal under such circumstances. See Model Rule 1.16(b)(4) (permitting withdrawal where "the client insists upon taking action . . . with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement"). Given these circumstances, and the Court's having extended petitioner's time to move for reconsideration, we are satisfied that granting Ms. Lapekas's Motion is warranted and fair to all parties.
The foregoing considered, it is
ORDERED that the above-referenced Motion to Withdraw is granted and Karen J. Lapekas is hereby withdrawn as counsel for petitioner in this case. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change petitioner's address of record to the mailing address listed in his Response (docket entry # 39). It is further
ORDERED that, in addition to regular service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on petitioner at his updated address of record.