NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Fred L. SEEMAN, Individually and as 

Administrator of the Estate of Helene K. 

SEEMAN, and Curtis Jay Zuker SEEMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Amy LOCANE and Mark C. BOVENIZER, 

Carlos SAGEBIEN, and Rachel SAGEBIEN, 

Defendants.

 

 

Civ. No. 10-6597

OPINION

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ motion to disqualify Parker Waichman 

LLP as Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Docket No. 77). 

On December 20, 2010, the firm Parker Waichman LLP filed a complaint on behalf of 

Fred L. Seeman, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Helene K. Seeman and their 

son, Curtis Jay Zuckerman Seeman. (Id.). The Complaint stated that Ms. Locane was operating 

her vehicle under the influence and caused severe injuries to Fred Seeman and fatal injuries to 

his wife, Helene Seeman. (Id.). The Complaint also asserted a claim on behalf of Curtis Jay 

Zuckerman Seeman based on his witnessing his mother’s death. (Id.). 

Defense counsel claims that Parker Waichman LLP’s representation of all plaintiffs is a 

concurrent conflict of interest. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a concurrent conflict of 

Case 3:10-cv-06597-AET-LHG Document 85 Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 701
interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be 

materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former 

client, or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. 

Rule 1.7(a). Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest, a lawyer may 

represent a client if the following are true:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide 

competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client 

against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other 

proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent.

Rule 1.7(b). 

Here, Plaintiffs have satisfied the standard set forth by Rule 1.7(b) to allow Parker 

Waichman LLP’s representation to continue. Parker Waichman LLP claims that it believes that 

it will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to all the Plaintiffs. (Docket No. 

80). Plaintiffs have represented that they have been aware of any potential conflicts of interest

since the inception of this case. (Id., Exs. B, C, D). Plaintiffs also have represented that they 

have been advised, both by present counsel and independently, of the risks, advantages and 

disadvantages of their present, common representation. (Id., Exs. B, C, D). Plaintiffs 

additionally have waived any conflicts in writing. (Id., Exs. B, C, D). Therefore, Defendants’ 

motion to disqualify is denied. An appropriate order will follow.

/s/ Anne E. Thompson

ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

Date: 8/5/14

Case 3:10-cv-06597-AET-LHG Document 85 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 702