IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
 
EVELYN ROMULUS and IVAN  
) 
CHINNERY,  
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
) 
CIVIL NO. 2010-64 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,  
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
) 
______________________________) 
 
ORDER 
 
Before the Court is defendant’s motion to disqualify 
plaintiffs’ counsel on the basis that there is an alleged 
conflict 
or 
potential 
conflict 
of 
interest 
in 
such 
representation. 
 
This 
is 
so, 
defendant 
argues, 
because 
plaintiffs may ultimately blame on another for the events giving 
rise to this lawsuit.  In connection with argument on the 
disqualification motion, plaintiffs’ counsel represented that 
counsel had obtained written waivers from plaintiffs of any such 
conflicts.  Following the hearing, the Court asked for such 
written waivers to be submitted ex parte for an in camera 
review. 
   The Court has reviewed the waivers of conflict submitted by 
the Plaintiffs, and notes that they do not demonstrate on their 
face the specificity required under Rule 1.7(b)(4) of the ABA 
Rules of Professional Conduct.  Informed consent contemplated 
Case: 3:10-cv-00064-JRS-RM   Document #: 116   Filed: 09/30/11   Page 1 of 3
under Rule 1.7(b)(4) requires that “each affected client be 
aware of the relevant circumstances and of the material and 
reasonably foreseeable ways that the conflict could have adverse 
effects on the interest of the client.”1  Further, when 
representing multiple clients in a single matter, the clients 
must also be advised of “the implications of the common 
representation, 
including 
possible 
effects 
of 
loyalty, 
confidentiality, and the attorney-client privilege and the 
advantages and risks involved.”2 
 
Because granting a motion to disqualify has such grave 
implications for a party in the litigation,3 to demonstrate 
whether there has been compliance with the requirements of Rule 
1.7(b)(4), the Court invites plaintiffs to submit affidavits 
that specifically contain the information required to waive any 
possible concurrent conflict of interest that may arise in this 
case.4 
 
Accordingly, 
if 
plaintiffs 
wish 
to 
submit 
such 
                                                          
1 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, Comment, 
Informed Consent, p. 35 (2009) (citing Rule 1.0(e)). 
 
2 Id. (citing Comments [30] and [31] (effect of common 
representation on confidentiality)). 
 
3   See Jackson v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65632, at 
*5 (E.D. Pa Aug. 26, 2008). 
 
4   See, e.g., Jackson v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 
65632 (E.D. Pa Aug. 26, 2008)(concluding that affidavits 
sufficiently addressed the requirements of informed consent); 
Hesling v. The Avon Grove School District, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 
24209 (E.D. Pa April 2, 2007) (concluding that defendants 
Case: 3:10-cv-00064-JRS-RM   Document #: 116   Filed: 09/30/11   Page 2 of 3
affidavits, they must be submitted within 10 days from the date 
of this Order.  The affidavits may be submitted ex parte; 
however, a notice that they have been submitted shall be filed 
on the docket. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
S\________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RUTH MILLER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States Magistrate Judge 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
averred to knowledge of the potential conflict and gave 
“informed consent” to continue with joint representation); 
Kaiser v. Steward, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4966 (E.D. Pa April 11, 
1997)(noting that the law firm should not be disqualified from 
representing clients from whom it has obtained consenting 
affidavits). 
Case: 3:10-cv-00064-JRS-RM   Document #: 116   Filed: 09/30/11   Page 3 of 3