- 18 -
Petitioners admitted to receiving many of the other letters and
documents which Jacob sent to them. Jacob also copied
Hesselbacher on all correspondence after he was retained to
protect the petitioners interests; Hesselbacher received this
correspondence. Petitioners also admitted that they were aware
Jacob might not be able to try the cases due to a conflict of
interest and that Jacob had retained Hesselbacher to represent
them at trial in the event Jacob could not.
B. Rule 24(g)(3)
Where an attorney may “potentially be called as a witness”,
Rule 24(g) requires that the attorney either withdraw or “take
whatever other steps are necessary to obviate a conflict of
interest or other violation of the ABA Model Rules of
Professional Conduct * * * [rule] 3.7”. In contrast to Rule
24(g)(1), Rule 24(g)(3) cannot be satisfied by obtaining the
informed consent of the client.
As early as June 2001, respondent and Jacob were aware that
Jacob might be called as a witness at trial and made efforts to
satisfy Rule 24(g)(3). Respondent and Jacob exchanged extensive
correspondence on the issue, culminating in the retention of
Hesselbacher. Jacob also undertook efforts to stipulate any
testimony from him that respondent deemed necessary. We conclude
that Jacob took sufficient steps to “obviate a conflict of
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