- 11 -
The Thompsons had previously hired another attorney, Samuel
M. Huestis (Mr. Huestis), to prepare an estate plan for them. In
a letter dated October 28, 1986, Mr. Huestis expressed concern to
Mr. Seery about Mr. Seery’s apparently close association with Mr.
Kersting. Mr. Heustis said Mr. Seery could be viewed as having a
conflict of interest between Mr. Kersting and the participants in
the Kersting programs, and that any resulting harm to the
Thompsons could result in an action against Mr. Seery for
“professional negligence”. On October 31, 1986, Mr. Seery filed
a motion to withdraw as counsel for the Thompsons in their
docketed cases, which the Court granted.
In ruling on a subsequent motion, Judge Goffe observed that
Mr. Seery might have a conflict of interest if he represented
both petitioners and Mr. Kersting. Mr. Seery subsequently filed
motions to withdraw as counsel in the Kersting project cases
(both test cases and nontest cases), citing concerns about a
possible conflict of interest. The Court granted Mr. Seery’s
motions.9
9On Nov. 7, 1986, Mr. Seery had filed a motion to change the
place of trial of the test cases from Maui to Honolulu. Mr.
Seery asserted that a trial in Maui would be inconvenient and a
hardship to Mr. Kersting, who lived and operated a business in
Honolulu. On Nov. 14, 1986, the Court denied that motion, noting
that the motion “implies that * * * [Mr. Seery] represents not
only petitioners but also Henry Kersting, the promoter of the tax
shelters which are the subject of this litigation.” The Court
went on to observe that, if Mr. Seery were representing both Mr.
Kersting and petitioners, the dual representation would
constitute a conflict of interest. The Court attached to the
(continued...)
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