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.

____________________________________/

i

RESPONSE TO DEBTOR’S EMERGENCY 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 60 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 3
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.

Debtor 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 60 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 3
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 Clients 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 60 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 3