Enforcement Bureau Presses Conflict of Interest Arguments in Guel Hearing

The FCC Enforcement Bureau has renewed arguments that broadcast attorney Dan Alpert has conflicts of interest and can’t represent multiple parties in the hearing proceeding on the TV and radio licenses of Antonio Guel and the Hispanic Christian Community Network, according to a transcript released Wednesday of an Aug.14 status hearing (see 2407290030). “I cannot figure out how he could both defend Mr. Guel at a deposition, and represent witnesses at the deposition,” said EB Special Counsel Michael Engel. “That's unheard of.” Alpert said that he has represented HCCN and other companies affiliated with Guel for many years, and the staff of those companies consider him their lawyer, including many of the witnesses in the case, which include Guel’s daughter Maria Guel and niece Jennifer Juarez. Alpert said all those involved have consented to him representing them. The hearing proceeding is based in part on allegations that Guel pretended to sell his stations to Juarez while actually retaining control of them. At the hearing, Engel said that in an interview with the EB, Juarez told them she had never spoken with Alpert, though he represented her before the FCC for ten years. “How was he able to discern her desires if he had never spoken to her? That's an extremely curious representation to make to Your Honor,” Engel said. “Very troubling.” Alpert said that he and Juarez communicated in writing and that Engel’s questions showed that he knew little about how LPTV stations function. Generally, they require very infrequent interactions with their attorneys, even across a decade, Alpert said. “All it requires is basically 'Hey, your annual regulatory fees are due.' Email once a year, every other year, an ownership report is due,” Alpert said. “I mean for him to be incredulous about that sort of thing, is he foolish or stupid, is what I'm asking at this point here,” Alpert said. FCC Administrative Law Judge Jane Halprin said she would weigh whether to require the witnesses to get new counsel and that such a requirement could severely delay the resolution of the case.