- 9 -
corresponding with Hesselbacher regarding the cases, even sending
Hesselbacher an outline of respondent’s interpretation of the
transactions at issue so Hesselbacher would be familiar with the
issues in the case. Sometime in September 2001, Hesselbacher
went to Jacob’s office and spent time to get familiar with
Jacob’s voluminous files.
Thereafter, respondent’s counsel concluded that Jacob would
be a necessary witness at trial, informed Jacob of this fact, and
asked Jacob if he would withdraw from the case voluntarily. On
September 6, 2001, Jacob sent a letter to respondent in which he
again confirmed his intention to withdraw from the cases “when
the circumstances warrant”; copies of this letter were sent to
petitioners and to Hesselbacher. On September 13, 2001,
respondent’s counsel, Jacob, and Hesselbacher participated in a
conference call with the Court. Respondent’s counsel did not
advise the Court during this call that Jacob was going to be
called as a witness at trial, since respondent’s counsel was
awaiting the necessary approval from the National Office to file
a motion to disqualify Jacob.5
On September 17, 2001, the Court set the trial for October
24, 2001, during the Court’s Baltimore session. Also on
September 17, 2001, Jacob sent a letter to respondent stating
5 Respondent’s counsel had recently drafted such a motion
and sent it to the National Office with a request for approval to
file it with the Court.
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