- 7 -
Thereafter, respondent’s counsel concluded Jacob might be
needed as a witness at trial. On June 11, 2001, respondent’s
counsel communicated this concern to Jacob through a letter that
referred to Rule 24(g) and rule 3.7 of the Model Rules of
Professional Conduct, and stated that respondent would for those
reasons move the Court to disqualify Jacob under Rule 24(g).
Jacob discussed this letter’s contents with petitioners shortly
after he received it. He told Geoffrey that respondent wanted
Jacob to testify regarding the formation of the ESOP, but that
any such testimony could be stipulated, obviating the need for
Jacob to testify. Geoffrey told Jacob that he wanted Jacob to
continue to represent him, and they agreed Jacob would remain.
Jacob also discussed the subject with Peter in June 2001. He
told Peter that if Jacob had to testify at trial, another lawyer
would have to represent petitioners. When Peter expressed
concern about this, Jacob said that he would still be involved
and would be directing the progress of the case. Later in that
month, Jacob advised petitioners that Robert W. Hesselbacher, Jr.
(Hesselbacher), had been retained as co-counsel and would step in
to represent petitioners should Jacob be needed as a witness. In
June 2001, Jacob secured the informed consent of petitioners to
continue to represent them, notwithstanding any conflict of
interest stemming from his formation of the ESOP.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011