- 51 -
the Court noted that the motion "implies that * * * [Mr. Seery]
represents not only petitioners but also Henry Kersting, the
promoter of the tax shelters which are the subject of this
litigation." The Court went on to observe that, if Mr. Seery
were representing both Mr. Kersting and petitioners, the dual
representation would constitute a conflict of interest. The
Court attached to the order copies of several authorities
concerning conflicts of interest, including Adams v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359 (1985). Mr. Seery subsequently filed
motions to withdraw as counsel in the Kersting project cases
(both test cases and nontest cases), citing concerns about a
possible conflict of interest. The Court granted Mr. Seery's
motions.
By letter dated December 12, 1986, Mr. Kersting informed
Kersting program participants that Judge Goffe had "inferred"
that Mr. Seery might have a conflict of interest. Although
Mr. Kersting denied that he was represented by Mr. Seery, he
stated that he and Mr. Seery had decided that it would be prudent
for Mr. Seery to withdraw as counsel. Mr. Kersting further
stated that substitute counsel had been retained to represent
test case and nontest case petitioners alike.
D. Entries of Appearance by Chicoine and Hallett
Following Mr. Seery's withdrawal, Mr. Bradt recommended that
Mr. Kersting hire Mr. Izen to serve as counsel for the test
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011