- 12 -
to which it had agreed. Respondent contends that the parties
entered into a valid agreement and the circumstances of this case
do not warrant the setting aside of that agreement.
The estate was represented by an attorney, who was serving
as a consultant for respondent on another case. The estate
contends that Mr. Harkavy was representing the IRS at the same
time he was representing the estate. We have found that the two
cases were unrelated and that Mr. Harkavy did not “represent”
respondent in the unrelated case. In particular, Mr. Harkavy
provided an opinion as to the rights of a partnership under
agreements executed with the Community Redevelopment Agency
regarding the construction of a 73-story office building.
The estate contends that Mr. Harkavy’s relationship with
respondent was in violation of model rule 1.7 of the Model Rules
of Professional Conduct (ABA 2003). Model rule 1.7(a) generally
provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.” In
particular, the estate relies on subpart (1) of model rule
1.7(a), which provides that a conflict exists if “the
representation of one client will be directly adverse to another
client”. Under that provision, a conflict occurs only where the
representation of clients is directly adverse.
While Mr. Harkavy had an attorney/client relationship with
the executor and estate, he did not have an attorney/client
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011