COM 0603.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

e ~ Duena W,H. Penp, Bsq. September 17, 1993 Peg• t (repr6eentetion of client• whose interests srv adverse pezmissihle when interests ar• pgtontially conflicting). 8. Workers' Como~neaeion Hatter You independently inquire whether a conflict of Snterert mould arise in connection with yyoour Oepartment'e simultaneous defenr• of one of the Defendants in the federal lewsuiL while taking a position adverse to that Defendant on behalf of the City in defending against the individual's workers' componsncion claim, ha stated in Internetiorl•1 ueiness Heohinee Coro v tey~ 579 Y.2Q 271 (3d Cir. 1978), xhere..the selntionehip between an nttorney end his or her c11eAi, ie an active and existing one, edvorse reprvevntation U °rima fad improper. ~g pvno_ re11~ )q~ v. Fona, 60 New. 601, 593 P.2d 386 (1979). Problems initially raised in ouch aieuncions relste eo the deleLerlou• affect upon the ectorney~s independenoe of iiudgment, loyalty, end vigor in hie or her ropresantecion of one client against another. While a lawyer may ethically be able to continue to reppreaene, in unrelated matters, clients who era adverse to each ot?~er in a separate case, the situation changes where the lawyer becomes involved on behalf of one client in direct opposition to the other olient. The conflict et theL point becomes actual rather than potential, end (ea discussed in Section I.A. above) xaiver of the conflict by either or both clients is iaadequete to panels the laxyer'a further involvement on behalf of each client. The adversity betxeen the City end the Defendant on the Defendant's vrorkere~ compensation claim nvgstes the City's ability to •thicnlly continue rimultaneou• reprvrentdtion of that Defendant in the federal lawsuit. Your letter raises, howawr, a !actual issue deserving of further discussion. You slats in yyoour letter that the peputy in your Dvpartmeat who rill be defondinq the City against the Defendant's vorkore' Compenaatiorl C1eLa le housed in s building which i• phyeicslly sepasat• from yours. In your follow-up telephone conversation with Its. l:urphy, you slats that your office consists of tour aepazaLe divisions coneletlnq o! 33 nttorneya, the majority of Nho~m are housed in City Hall. Division etnff meetings include only the attorneys of that particular divieton. You are assigned to the Trials Division o! your Department, while the attoraey handling the underlyiaq xorkera' compensation matter is assigned to a sepnrnte division. In $t ate v. ICletiten f, 71 Hax..S96, 801 P.2d s~8 (1990), the Supreme Court pernittvd the Deportment of tho 1lttorney Genernl to