UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re: Case No. 18-16248-BKC-MAM 

 Chapter 7

CHANCE & ANTHEM, LLC,

Debtor.

_____________________________________/ 

ROBERT C. FURR not individually but ADV. NO. 19-01298-MAM

as Chapter 7 Trustee of the estate of the

Debtor, Chance & Anthem, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

JEFFREY M. SISKIND, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

AMENDED RESPONSE TO CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

(Re ECF No. 52)

Defendants Second Siskind Family Trust, Siskind Legal Services, LLC, Florida’s 

association of Community Banks & Credit Unions, Inc., Sympatico Equine Rescue, Inc., 

Sovereign Gaming & Entertainment, LLC, CannaMED Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Tanya Siskind

hereby file their Response to the Chapter 7 Trustee’s Amended Motion to Disqualify Jeffrey 

Siskind as counsel to said adversary defendants. For the reasons set forth herein, the Emergency 

Motion should be denied. 

INTRODUCTION

The Chapter 7 Trustee filed its Amended Motion to Disqualify Jeffrey Siskind as Counsel 

to Adversary Defendants on September 30, 2019, within which the Trustee cited Siskind’s prior 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 63 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 8
role as the Debtor’s managing member and potential claims against Siskind as being a conflict.

The Trustee also seeks disqualification of Siskind based upon potential adversity between the 

various Adversary Defendants.

The Trustee seeks to disqualify undersigned counsel and his firm due to conflicts of 

interest which cannot be waived. Noticeably absent, however, is any allegation that any party

has been or will be prejudiced by the purported conflicts. Such as allegation would be difficult at 

best to make when the Trustee has alleged in its adversary complaint that the Adversary 

Defendants are Siskind’s alter egos.

The Trustee fails to explain why these purported apparent conflicts are not waivable. 

Instead, the Trustee seeks to interfere with the various Adversary Defendants’ rights to choose 

their own counsel. For such an extraordinary request, the Trustee is required to meet a “very 

high” standard to prove a violation of at least one Florida Rule of Professional Conduct which is 

“severe” enough to impose upon the Court a “plain duty” to disqualify. 

In other words, where a violation of a Rule is not severe disqualification is not required. 

General and vague claims, such as those made by the Trustee, are not close to sufficient to meet 

this very high standard of proof. As to Rule 4-1.7 which relates to conflicts relating to current 

clients, as explained below, to the extent there is conflict here, it is de minimis and therefore

waivable with informed consent pursuant to the plain language of Rule 4-1.7 (and the comments 

thereto). 

Motions to disqualify by opposing counsel based on a purported conflict must be viewed 

with caution because they are often filed to harass and/or for tactical reasons. Even a cursory 

review of the Trustee’s motion shows that it is a half-hearted attempt to sever the attorney-client 

relationship which is legally and factual baseless, and that it was filed it simply for tactical 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 63 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 8
reasons and to harass undersigned counsel and his clients. Therefore, the Trustee’s motion 

should be denied.

ARGUMENT

A litigant is presumptively entitled to counsel of its choosing. See Keane v. Jacksonville 

Police Fire & Pension Fund Bd. of Trs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149973 at *16 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 1, 

2017) (“Keane”). Therefore, only a compelling reason will justify disqualification. Id. Because 

disqualification is a harsh sanction, it should be resorted to sparingly. Id. And because a 

disqualification motion may be used to harass or for tactical advantage, it should be viewed with 

caution. Id. Indeed, disqualification is not mandatory even if a court finds a violation a conflictof-interest rule. Id. 

Here, the Trustee has failed to provide a legitimate reason - let alone a compelling reason 

as required - to deprive the Adversary Defendants of their fundamental right to choose their 

counsel. Indeed, the Trustee does not even address the threshold question: whether he has standing 

to disqualify Siskind. As shown below, he does not have standing. Therefore, the Trustee’s motion 

should be dismissed for this reason alone. 

I. The Trustee Does Not Have Standing to Seek to Deprive the Adversary Defendants 

of their Fundamental Right to Choose their Own Counsel. 

The general rule is that opposing counsel does not have standing to seek disqualification of 

his adversary. See Keane at *19. There is, however, a single “narrow” exception to this general 

rule. Id. at *19-20. This sole narrow exception is where there is a conflict “such as clearly to call 

in question the fair or efficient administration of justice ....” Id. at *18-19 quoting Rule 4-1.7 

(Comment: “Conflict Charged By Opposing Party”) (emphasis added); see also Houston Specialty 

Ins. Co. v. Titleworks of Southwest Fla., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173164 at *6-7 (M.D. Fla., 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 63 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 8
Apr. 12, 2016) (“Houston”). A conflict must be “severe” in order to clearly call into the fair or 

efficient administration of justice. See Keane at *19-20. Put another way, opposing counsel does 

not have standing unless a conflict is “manifest and glaring” such that such that a court has “a plain 

duty to act.” Id. Where the request to disqualify is by someone who is not an aggrieved current 

or former client and who has a strategic interest in the disqualification it should be viewed with 

caution. Id. The moving party has the burden to prove he has standing to deprive persons of their 

fundamental right to choose their own counsel. See Houston at *6-7. This is a “very high” burden 

because opposing counsel must prove a severe and glaring conflict. Id. at *7-8. Vague and general 

claims are not sufficient to satisfy the “very high standard” to prove that a conflict of interest is 

“glaring” and “severe.” Id.; Keane at *19-20.

The Trustee fails to even address whether he has standing, let alone attempt to meet his 

“very high” burden to prove a “glaring” and “severe” conflict in violation of a Rule. The 

Trustee’s vague and general allegations regarding the purported conflict upon which his motion 

is based fall woefully short of meeting his heavy burden to prove he has standing. The Trustee

has failed to even address whether the purported conflict affects the fair or efficient administration 

of justice, let alone whether it “clearly” calls it into question. Thus, the motion should be denied 

because the Trustee lacks standing to seek to deprive the Adversary Defendants of their 

fundamental right to choose their own counsel.

II. The Applicable Florida Rule of Professional Conduct Does Not Provide a Basis for 

Disqualification. 

Because the Trustee lacks standing there is no need to address whether there is a basis to 

disqualify. Out of an abundance of caution, however, it will be shown that the Trustee cannot 

prevail in any event because there is no such basis. 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 63 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 8
The Eleventh Circuit has held that where there is an allegation that an attorney has engaged 

in an ethical violation, the court must identify the applicable Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 

and determine whether the charged attorney violated that rule. See Keane at *15 citing

Schlumberger Tech. Inc. v. Wiley, 113 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that a Federal 

court “may not simply rely on a general inherent power to admit and suspend attorneys” to decide 

a disqualification motion).1 

Rule 4-1.7 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of one client 

will be directly adverse to another client or if there is a substantial risk the representation of a client 

will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client unless the lawyer 

obtains informed consent. See Rule 4-1.7(a)(b) (emphasis added). Whether concurrent 

representation in litigation is appropriate depends on the nature of the litigation. See Rule 4-1.7 

(Comment: “Conflicts in Litigation”). “[C]ommon representation of persons having similar 

interests is proper if the risk of adverse effect is minimal.” Id. (emphasis added). Clients can 

waive minimal conflicts if they provide informed consent after their lawyer explains the 

implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.” Id. A conflict 

must be “substantial” to not be waivable. Id.

 Here, the interests of undersigned’s clients are substantially aligned inasmuch as the Trustee 

has alleged that all of them are the undersigned’s alter egos. Any alleged conflict between the 

undersigned’s clients is waivable (notwithstanding the Trustee’s unsupported and conclusory 

1 Attorneys in the Southern District of Florida are governed in their professional conduct by the Rules 

Regulating the Florida Bar. See S.D. Fla. Local Rule 11.1(c). 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 63 Filed 10/04/19 Page 5 of 8
allegations to the contrary) with informed consent after receiving an explanation of the 

implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.

Put another way, because the potential adverse effect of the common representation is 

minimal, waiver of the putative conflict is permitted. The Adversary Defendants have provided 

such informed consent after receiving an explanation of the implications of the common 

representation and the advantages and risks involved. Thus, even if the Trustee has standing to 

seek to deprive the Adversary Defendants of their fundamental right to choose their own counsel, 

which he does not, there is no basis to disqualify Siskind.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Trustee’s motion to disqualify Jeffrey Siskind as 

counsel to Defendants Second Siskind Family Trust, Siskind Legal Services, LLC, Florida’s 

association of Community Banks & Credit Unions, Inc., Sympatico Equine Rescue, Inc., 

Sovereign Gaming & Entertainment, LLC, CannaMED Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Tanya Siskind 

should be denied. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants Second Siskind Family Trust, Siskind Legal Services, LLC, 

Florida’s association of Community Banks & Credit Unions, Inc., Sympatico Equine Rescue, Inc., 

Sovereign Gaming & Entertainment, LLC, CannaMED Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Tanya Siskind 

Interested parties and Creditors respectfully request this Court deny the Trustee’s Motion to 

Disqualify and for such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. 

Dated: October 4, 2019

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 63 Filed 10/04/19 Page 6 of 8
Respectfully submitted, 

S I S K I N D L E G A L

___/s/ Jeffrey M. Siskind___

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esquire

FBN 138746

3465 Santa Barbara Drive

Wellington, FL 33414

TEL (561) 791-9565

FAX (561) 791-9581

Email: jeffsiskind@msn.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished this 9th day of 

April 2018, via CM/ECF to all persons authorized to receive notices, electronically, as set forth on 

the attached Service List and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to all parties listed on the attached 

Service List who are not authorized to receive notices, electronically, through the Court’s CM/ECF 

system. 

___/s/ Jeffrey M. Siskind___

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esquire

FBN 138746

SERVICE LIST

Notice will be served via U.S. Mail and/or E-mail upon: 

John H. Genovese, Esq. Florida Bar No. 280852 Jesus M. Suarez, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 60086 

GENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A. 100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 

Tel.: (305) 349-2300 Fax.: (305) 349-2310 Via email to jgenovese@gjb-law.com and 

jsuarez@gjb-law.com (Counsel to the Chapter 7 Trustee)

Samantha Tesser Haimo, Esq. com Florida Bar No. 148016 7900 Peters Road, Suite B-200 Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33324 (954) 376–5956 - Telephone (954) 206-0188 – Facsimile Via email to 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 63 Filed 10/04/19 Page 7 of 8
sth@womenatlawfl. (Counsel for Defendants OB Real Estate 1732, LLC, Wellington 3445, LP 

and Zokaites Properties, LP)

Jeffrey M. Siskind, individually 3465 Santa Barbara Drive Wellington, FL 33414 Via e-mail to 

jeffsiskind@msn.com

Siskind Legal Services c/o Jeffrey M. Siskind, Managing Member 3465 Santa Barbara Drive 

Wellington, FL 33414 Via e-mail to jeffsiskind@msn.com

Tanya Siskind, individually 3465 Santa Barbara Drive Wellington, FL 33414 Via e-mail to 

jeffsiskind@msn.com

Second Siskind Family Trust c/o Tanya Siskind, Trustee 3465 Santa Barbara Drive Wellington, 

FL 33414 Via e-mail to jeffsiskind@msn.com

CannaMed Pharmaceuticals, LLC c/o Jeffrey M. Siskind, Managing Member 3465 Santa 

Barbara Drive Wellington, FL 33414 Via e-mail to jeffsiskind@msn.com

Sovereign Gaming and Entertainment, LLC c/o Jeffrey M. Siskind, on behalf of William Siskind, 

deceased 3465 Santa Barbara Drive Wellington, FL 33414 Via e-mail to jeffsiskind@msn.com

Florida’s Association of Community Banks and Credit Unions, Incorporated c/o Jeffrey M. 

Siskind, President 3465 Santa Barbara Drive Wellington, FL 33414 Via e-mail to 

jeffsiskind@msn.com

Sympatico Equine Rescue, Inc. c/o Jeffrey M. Siskind, President 3465 Santa Barbara Drive 

Wellington, FL 33414 Via e-mail to jeffsiskind@msn.com

Robert Gibson 1709 22nd Avenue North Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Via e-mail to 

intelexigent@gmail.com

Robert Gibson 7369 Palmdale Drive Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Via e-mail to 

intelexigent@gmail.com

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 63 Filed 10/04/19 Page 8 of 8