FCC ALJ Wants Answers on Attorney's Conflicts of Interest in Guel Hearing
FCC Administrative Law Judge Jane Halprin has ordered broadcast attorney Dan Alpert to explain how he can represent multiple clients whose interests conflict with each other in a hearing. The proceeding involves allegedly false transfers of control of low-power radio…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
and TV stations (see 2310020059). Alpert declined to comment. The proceeding concerns allegations that Antonio Guel transferred stations to his niece, Jennifer Juarez, to avoid including them in a bankruptcy filing, although he remained in control of the stations. Guel’s daughter, Maria Guel, allegedly controls other companies involved in the transaction (see 2402060049). The Enforcement Bureau filed an emergency motion Monday asking for Halprin to take action against Antonio Guel’s attorney, Alpert, after he informed it that he would be representing both Maria Guel and Juarez in depositions scheduled for next week. “Mr. Alpert now represents two witnesses in the case who are likely to provide information that is directly and materially adverse to the interests of his original client, Mr. Guel,” the EB motion said. Halprin cautioned Alpert in February about apparent conflicts of interest in the case. “It is a fundamental rule of practicing law that a lawyer may not represent clients in the same matter whose interests are adverse to each other,” wrote Halprin in Tuesday’s order. While Halprin said that rule can be waived if the parties provide informed consent, the EB argued that some conflicts in this matter can't be waived under DC Bar ethics rules. “The responsibility is on Mr. Alpert to know and adhere to applicable rules of professional conduct,” Halprin wrote. “At the same time, the Presiding Judge must be mindful that the Administrative Procedure Act and the Commission’s rules allow witnesses to be represented by counsel.” The EB “cannot risk incurring the cost of these depositions at the public’s expense only to have Mr. Guel or Ms. Juarez later claim ineffective assistance of counsel and/or otherwise challenge the integrity or validity of this entire proceeding,” the EB said. Tuesday’s order gives Alpert until Friday to respond and “include an explanation of how he reconciles his simultaneous representation of Mr. Guel, Ms. Guel, and Ms. Juarez with applicable rules of professional conduct.”