- 13 -
On June 10, 2003, the Court received a second letter from
Mrs. Wolfe, advising that she had not signed or authorized the
June 4 response to the Motion for Entry of Decisions on her
behalf or on behalf of WFO.
We set a hearing in Washington, D.C., to determine the
person authorized to represent WFO and to receive evidence with
respect to respondent’s Motion for Entry of Decisions.
III. Hearing
At the hearing, Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe, Messrs. McCarthy and
Brant,5 and Mr. Neubeck6 testified.7 In light of the unsettled
question of the then-authorized representative of WFO, we
permitted both Mrs. Wolfe and Mr. Mansour to present whatever
argument and evidence each wished on behalf of WFO.
Mrs. Wolfe and Messrs. Brant, McCarthy, and Neubeck all
testified consistently with the facts found above. Mrs. Wolfe
5 We ruled that Mr. Wolfe and Mrs. Wolfe (on her own behalf
and on behalf of WFO) had waived any attorney-client privilege by
voluntarily testifying about communications they had with their
attorneys regarding the settlement process, see State v. Post,
513 N.E.2d 754, 761 (Ohio 1987), and ordered Messrs. McCarthy and
Brant to testify regarding those conversations, see Ohio Code of
Profl. Resp., DR 4-101(C)(2) and (4) (1998).
6 To enable Mr. Neubeck to testify as a fact witness,
respondent obtained different counsel (John A. Freeman) for that
portion of the hearing concerning enforcement of the settlement.
7 Several days after the hearing, Mr. Mansour, as WFO’s
purported representative, moved to reopen the evidentiary hearing
so that he could testify. Despite having the opportunity at the
hearing, Mr. Mansour failed to call himself as a witness when he
presented WFO’s case. We accordingly denied his motion.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011