Estate of Lucille Abbott Sexton, Deceased, Ann Sexton Peterson, Executor - Page 14




                                       - 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