- 17 -
24(g) conflicts of interest. We find this attempt unavailing.
On the records at hand, we do not find any violation of Rule
24(g) that rises to the level of fraud on the Court.
A. Rule 24(g)(1)
Rule 24(g) provides that an attorney’s conflict of interest
under Rule 24(g)(1) may be waived by the informed consent of his
or her client. It is one of our common law’s oldest principles
that silence and acquiescence by the client constitutes
ratification and adoption of an agent’s actions or
representations. See, e.g., Feild v. Farrington, 77 U.S. 141,
146 (1870); Lone Star Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-465. The credible evidence in this case establishes that
Jacob kept his clients informed of his actions and that he
advised them regarding his conflict of interest under Rule
24(g)(1). The credible evidence also establishes, and we have
found as a fact, that both petitioners gave Jacob their informed
consent to continue representing them notwithstanding his
involvement with the ESOP. Both petitioners recalled discussing
this issue with Jacob, and they were sent copies of all Jacob’s
correspondence regarding the cases. In fact, Jacob even sent
petitioners copies of a letter in which he represented to
respondent that he had obtained their informed consent to
continue with the representation. While petitioners claim they
never received this letter, we find that claim incredible.
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