A lesson in not knowing the Judge's history

[Judge Roy Bean]

This may have been covered some months ago, but in doing a little research for a recent blog I came across the Partridge case appeal ruling (link below) and thought it might be illustrative in more than one way (in case you're wondering, Jerrold Berringer also represented Jo Hovind):

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... t-aff.html

We've probably all seen the quote from Judge Easterbrook from a tax case back in 1986: "Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest."

Barringer is both dumb and dumberer; guess who he "argued" his frivolous appeal cases before?

[Nikki]

from the referenced opinion

Jerold W. Barringer represented Patridge at trial, in the Tax Court, and during the three appeals to this court. He has performed below the standard of a pro se litigant; we have serious doubt about his fitness to practice law. The problem is not simply his inability to distinguish between plausible and preposterous arguments. It is his disdain for the norms of legal practice (19 issues indeed!) and the rules of procedure.

Barringer's brief contains this statement: "I, Jerold Barringer, certify by my signature above I have included Nos. 06-3635 & 06-3785 9 all of the materials required by parts (a) and (b) of Circuit Rule 30 in the appendix for the Appellant." The brief was accepted. But the representation is false -- whether deliberately so, or as a result of Barringer's inability to comprehend Rule 30, we cannot know. The only document "bound with the main brief " is the judgment of conviction. None of the district court's opinions and other explanations is attached to the brief. We eventually tracked down three that should have been included. Two concern Barringer's motions to dismiss the indictment; one denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal. The district judge's oral statement of reasons for the 60-month sentence should have been transcribed and included but was not. These omissions complicated our task of review.

Barringer is a recidivist; he ignored our 2006 decision reminding him that taxpayers cannot use a request for a collection hearing to contest their substantive liability. We therefore give Barringer 14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments and noncompliance with the Rules, and why he should not be suspended from practice until he demonstrates an ability to litigate an appeal competently and responsibly.

$10,000

[Cpt Banjo]

And this guy still has a license to practice law? Disgraceful.

[Dezcad]

Here is the docket entry for the sanctions:

12/6/07 IT IS ORDERED that attorney Jerold W. Barringer in 06-3635, Jerold W. Barringer in 06-3785 is fined in the amount of $10,000. This sum must be paid within 14 days, or the court will enter an order Modeled on Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995),
until payment has been made. Barringer is not entitled to a
hearing on this subject. No material facts are in dispute.
Nor is Barringer entitled by Fed. R. App. P. 38 to any
notice more detailed than that given by our opinion. Our
opinion also raised the possibility of suspending Barringer
from practice, and on that subject he would indeed be
entitled to a hearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 46(b)(3). But we
have decided to DISCHARGE the Rule to Show Cause with
respect to that issue. Barringer's conduct did not injure
his clients. We strongly suggest, however, that Barringer
take a course in appellate practice and endeavor to improve
his skills. [2036636-1] [06-3635, 06-3785] A check shall be
tendered made payable to the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals by
12/20/07 for Jerold W. Barringer in 06-3635, for Jerold W.
Barringer in 06-3785, for Jerold W. Barringer in 06-3785.

Beringer had his motion for rehearing and motion to stay the order on sanctions recently denied.

[Famspear]

from the Court:

We strongly suggest, however, that Barringer
take a course in appellate practice and endeavor to improve
his skills.

I'm thinking that a visit to a good shrink might not be a bad idea as well.

[Disilloosianed]

Wow....just wow. I've seen some harsh opinions, (not against me, of course ) but I don't think I've seen one before that suggested the attorney of record attend remedial education.

[notorial dissent]

Which he obviously didn’t comply with.

[grixit]

Judge made him sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap

[Doktor Avalanche]

You know things have really gone off the rails when the judge tells you to go back to school.

[Doktor Avalanche]

$10,000

But...but...that means he wins, right?

[SteveSy]

Guess they'll give the title Attorney at law to just about anyone...

So much for that meaning anything...

[Joey Smith]

Guess they'll give the title Attorney at law to just about anyone...

So much for that meaning anything...

It is like that in any profession. Maybe 10% at the top are really competent, the next 30% are OK as they follow the numbers and don't stray from their experience, the next 40% are marginally competent and often don't last that long in the profession before going off to do something for which they are better suited, and the bottom 20% are certifiably incompetent quacks who have no business taking clients.

This is roughly true in law, medicine, architecture, engineering, etc., etc., etc.

[ASITStands]

Beringer had his motion for rehearing and motion to stay the order on sanctions recently denied.

Does he have no way to appeal the sanction?

I can see why they might have had their fill of him, but we have no record of his having been admonished before, that I see. And, then to have no means of appealing the order seems rather harsh.

Maybe I'm not looking at everything.

[Dezcad]

Beringer had his motion for rehearing and motion to stay the order on sanctions recently denied.

I can see why they might have had their fill of him, but we have no record of his having been admonished before, that I see. And, then to have no means of appealing the order seems rather harsh.

Maybe I'm not looking at everything.

The 7th Circuit feels that this is not an isolated case. This is from the 7th Circuit opinion:

Barringer is a recidivist; he ignored our 2006 decision reminding him that taxpayers cannot use a request for a collection hearing to contest their substantive liability. We therefore give Barringer 14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments and noncompliance with the Rules, and why he should not be suspended from practice until he demonstrates an ability to litigate an appeal competently and responsibly. See Fed. R. App. P. 38, 46(b), (c).

He could always petition for a writ of cert with the SCOTUS.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I agree with Joey, particularly in one sense: Like everything else, complexity breeds specialties, and from experience, most attorneys have either evolved or mutated into narrowed areas of practice.

I think far too many attorneys, especially sole practitioners or in small shops, will take a case outside their own expertise. I see this all the time in mortgage lending and servicing cases; the attorney is learning it as they go along.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

I spent my afternoon at the Office of Attorney Discipline (Which is not as cool of a place as it might sound. Perhaps if Webhick could have sent over a few interns ).

Thankfully, I was merely the holder of a file (seven bankers boxes is the file) and was the successor attorney to the one who is under investigation. The client was the one who filed the complaint, making me a witness to how the case was handled prior to my involvement and what steps had to be taken to fix some of the problems. This attorney clearly fits into the bottom 20%. The investigator concluded our 3 1/2 hour meeting to by stating that she thought the attorney may or may not have broken some ethical rules, but she appeared to be only "marginally competent". Being merely "marginally competent" does not get your ticket punched.

The stupidest thing this attorney did was sue her former client (and IMNSHO, make some misrepresentations to the Court during this lawsuit). I don't know whether I hope that this quack will be subject to a full investigation (and I will then need to testify before the Star Chamber) or that this just goes away.

[LPC]

I think far too many attorneys, especially sole practitioners or in small shops, will take a case outside their own expertise.

A significant part of my practice has been cleaning up other lawyers' screw-ups.

My favorite case involved off-setting errors. I was brought in to advise whether an unnecessary estate tax marital deduction election could be undone, because it was likely to result in unnecessary estate tax upon the death of the surviving spouse. My conclusion was that the election was irrevocable, but that it was also invalid, because the interest had never qualified for the marital deduction because of the way the will was written.

In other words, the malpractice in preparing the Form 706 (federal estate tax return) was canceled out by the malpractice in writing the will.

It doesn't get much better than that.

[webhick]

In other words, the malpractice in preparing the Form 706 (federal estate tax return) was canceled out by the malpractice in writing the will.

Sometimes two wrongs make a right. Occasionally a left. Sometimes a baby and then child services steps in and puts the kid into foster care.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I think far too many attorneys, especially sole practitioners or in small shops, will take a case outside their own expertise.

A significant part of my practice has been cleaning up other lawyers' screw-ups.

My favorite case involved off-setting errors. I was brought in to advise whether an unnecessary estate tax marital deduction election could be undone, because it was likely to result in unnecessary estate tax upon the death of the surviving spouse. My conclusion was that the election was irrevocable, but that it was also invalid, because the interest had never qualified for the marital deduction because of the way the will was written.

In other words, the malpractice in preparing the Form 706 (federal estate tax return) was canceled out by the malpractice in writing the will.

It doesn't get much better than that.

I just finished a Wills, Trusts and Estates class. I pulled a solid B out of it.

[wserra]

In other words, the malpractice in preparing the Form 706 (federal estate tax return) was canceled out by the malpractice in writing the will.

It's better to be lucky than good.