- 8 -
Following these discussions, Jacob sent a letter to
respondent on June 15, 2001, in which he informed respondent that
he had obtained his clients’ informed consent to obviate any
conflict under Rule 24(g)(1) and that Hesselbacher would be
entering an appearance as co-counsel to resolve any problems that
might arise under Rule 24(g)(3). Jacob stated that the 1993
transaction might be stipulated, thereby removing any need for
him to testify, but, in the event he could no longer represent
petitioners under Rule 24(g), he would immediately withdraw his
appearance. Copies of this letter were sent to Hesselbacher and
to petitioners. During 2001, respondent and Jacob exchanged
numerous correspondence and discovery documents, all of which
were provided to petitioners by Jacob.
In or about June 2001, respondent’s counsel contacted their
National Office for guidance on how to deal with the Rule 24(g)
issues in these cases. The National Office responded that Jacob
could continue to represent petitioners, with the understanding
that, in the event he was called as a witness, he would withdraw
and Hesselbacher would try the case.
On July 17, 2001, Hesselbacher entered his appearance as
co-counsel for petitioners. Geoffrey knew that Hesselbacher was
representing him. Jacob asked Hesselbacher to become familiar
with the cases so that, if the need arose, he could take over as
trial counsel. As of July 23, 2001, respondent started
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