Notice of Conflict of Interest

              IN THE CIRCUIT COURT GREENE COUNTY MISSOURI


Marc Perkel - pro se              )
                                  )
vs.                               )  No. 197CC0170
                                  )
William A. Wear Jr.               )
James R. Sharp                    )
The Lawfirm of Wear and Sharp     )
Vicki Stringfellow                )


                     NOTICE TO OPPOSING COUNSEL OF
                     APPARENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST
                     =============================

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Marc Perkel to give NOTICE to the Wear, Sharp, and
Lawfirm of Wear and Sharp as to conflict of interest in representing
defendant Vicki Stringfellow. You are hereby officially NOTIFIED of the
following facts that should be considered if defendants choose to
continue to represent this codefendant:


1) Rule 3.7 "LAWYER AS WITNESS" states in the relevant part, "(a) A
   lawyer shall not act as an advocate at trial in which the lawyer is
   likely to be a necessary witness ..."


2) Plaintiff hereby NOTIFIES defendants Wear, Sharp, and the Lawfirm of
   Wear and Sharp that he intends to call them as necessary witnesses
   and intends to depose them as well as every member of their Lawfirm
   with respect to this action.


3) Plaintiff hereby NOTIFIES defendants Wear, Sharp, and the Lawfirm of
   Wear and Sharp that the questioning will include material facts and
   that the Plaintiff foresees that there is likely to be substantial
   conflict between the testimony of the client and the testimony of the
   lawyers.


4) Plaintiff hereby NOTIFIES defendant Stringfellow that he will call
   her as a necessary witness with respect to this action and may be
   called to testify against her lawyers.


5) Plaintiff hereby NOTIFIES defendant Stringfellow that by keeping her
   current counsel that she risks her rights to judicial review on the
   basis that her counsel was biased against her.


6) Plaintiff hereby NOTIFIES defendants that the questioning will
   include, but not limited to, questions with regard to the knowledge
   and joint participation in each others behavior, which may result in
   civil liability and/or criminal charges, with respect to the facts
   alleged in the complaint and the following brief.


7) Having been so NOTIFIED by the Plaintiff and having entered said
   NOTIFICATION into the record, should defendants Wear, Sharp, and the
   Lawfirm of Wear and Sharp choose to continue to represent defendant
   Stringfellow in this matter, then Plaintiff will assume the following
   facts are true:


   a) That Wear, Sharp, and the Lawfirm of Wear and Sharp have made a
      reasonable investigation into this matter and fully understands
      their duties as lawyers and advocates with regards to the Rules of
      Professional Conduct, and thereby certifies to the Court, under
      penalty of sanctions, that their representation of defendant
      Stringfellow is proper, and that they are in compliance with the
      Rules with respect to Conflict of Interest.


   b) Since Rule 3.7 allows an exception for uncontested issues, that
      Wear, Sharp, and the Lawfirm of Wear and Sharp have done a
      reasonable investigation and certifies to the Court that they can
      not foresee any situation where the testimony to be given by their
      client will conflict in any material way with their testimony.


   c) That in deciding to continue to represent defendant Stringfellow,
      after having read and fully considered this notification, that
      Wear, Sharp, and the Lawfirm of Wear and Sharp are thereby
      estopped from denying any testimony defendant Stringfellow gives
      under oath.


8) Plaintiff hereby NOTIFIES defendants Wear, Sharp, and the Lawfirm of
   Wear and Sharp that their attempt at representing defendant
   Stringfellow is causing unnecessary delays and expenses and may be
   construed as an act of tampering with the administration of justice.


                               STANDING
                               --------

9) Pursuant to Rule 1.7 comment section states in the relevant part,


                Conflict Charged by an Opposing Party

      "Resolving questions of conflict of interest is primarily the
      responsibility of the lawyer undertaking the representation. In
      litigation, a court may raise the question when there is reason to
      infer that the lawyer has neglected the responsibility. ..."

      "Where the conflict is such as clearly to call in question the
      fair and efficient administration of justice, opposing counsel may
      properly raise the question."



___________________________________
Marc Perkel * Plaintiff * 02-10-97