- 14 -
relationship with the IRS would not rise to the level of an
attorney/client relationship and model rule 1.7(a)(1) might not
apply.6
The estate also argued that model rule 1.7(a)(2) applied.
That rule provides that a conflict of interest exists if
there is a significant risk that the representation of
one or more clients will be materially limited by the
lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former
client or a third person or by a personal interest of
the lawyer.
This rule is, in some respects, more inclusive than model rule
1.7(a)(1).7 However, we need not and do not decide whether Mr.
Harkavy committed a violation of paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) in
model rule 1.7. Even assuming arguendo that a conflict of
interest did arise under these rules, we must consider the
effect, if any, it had on Mr. Harkavy’s representation of the
estate.
6 Mrs. Peterson testified that, as executor of the estate,
if she had become aware that Mr. Harkavy had been working for
respondent at the same time he was representing the estate, she
would have terminated the relationship. While we appreciate Mrs.
Peterson’s sentiment, by itself, it is not a reason for vacating
an agreed decision.
7 With respect to its conflict argument, the estate also
argued that Mr. Harkavy should have made full disclosure of his
relationship with respondent and obtained the estate’s consent to
same as required in model rule 1.7(b). In that regard, Mr.
Harkavy testified that he had informed Mrs. Peterson of his
involvement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). There is
disagreement about whether Mrs. Peterson understood that Mr.
Harkavy was employed by the IRS.
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