- 295 -
as counsel stated that Mr. Seery felt obliged to withdraw because
the Court had raised an issue of his possible conflict of
interest.
The record in these cases does not reflect that Mr. Seery
had a conflict of interest as the result of his possible dual
representation of Mr. Kersting and Kersting program participants.
Mr. Seery negotiated the modified 7-percent settlement offer with
Mr. McWade and arranged to have it disseminated to Kersting
program participants, notwithstanding Mr. Kersting's disapproval
of the offer as inadequate. Equally important, because Mr. Seery
revealed in his motions to withdraw as counsel that he felt
obliged to withdraw because the Court had raised an issue of his
possible conflict of interest, Mr. Sticht's clients had ample
opportunity at that time to move to have their piggyback
agreements set aside.
Finally, even assuming for the sake of argument that
Mr. Seery had a conflict of interest, petitioners have failed to
show that they were prejudiced by his actions. See Adams v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 375-376. Accordingly, we will deny Mr.
Sticht's Motions for Release From Piggyback Agreement filed on
behalf of nontest case petitioners Richard B. and Donna G.
Rogers, Anthony E. and Carol A. Eggers, and John L. and Terry E.
Huber.120
120 Mr. Sticht included as an attachment to the Rogers
motion a copy of a piggyback agreement executed by Mr. Seery (on
the Rogerses' behalf) and by Mr. McWade. Mr. Sticht contends
(continued...)
Page: Previous 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011