Geoffrey K. Calderone, Sr. - Page 17

                                       - 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