May 26, 2009 · This trend toward naming individual employees as co-defendants in employment suits means that lawyers are increasingly being asked to defend both the employer and the individual co-defendant. Of course, whenever a lawyer is faced with a joint representation, he or she must carefully examine the facts for actual and potential conflicts of interest between the …
Thus, under Rule 1.13(d), a lawyer for an organization may represent one or more of the organization’s constituents simultaneously if certain conditions are met. But the focus of this article is on whether the lawyer automatically represents constituents by operation of law, even if the lawyer has not intentionally undertaken to represent ...
A "defendant" is a general term used to describe a person who or an entity that has been accused of violating the law in some way. Unfortunately, this term commonly carries a stigma of someone who has done something wrong. However, it is extremely important to remember that a defendant has not yet stood trial, and thus must be presumed innocent. Our system uses a code of …
An attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client. An attorney cannot represent two co-defendants if there is an actual conflict. If "A" says "B" did it and "B" says "A" did it, there would be an obvious conflict. An attorney could not here represent "A" and "B". If there is a potential conflict, an attorney may get "A" and "B" to agree to allow ...
Based on the opinions in MetLife Demutualization and Seward & Kissel, we know that the policyholders of a mutual insurance company, the stockholders of a corporation, and the limited partners of a limited partnership are not a lawyer’s clients merely because the lawyer represents the corporation or the partnership.
If Judge Rakoff’s expansive (and I think wrongheaded) view of corporate clients in GSI Commerce Solutions is accepted, then checking for conflicts may not be too difficult — any wholly owned subsidiary of a corporate client is automatically a client because “its liabilities directly impact” the parent’s bottom line. But that was just dicta.
The discussion in this article suggests that the problems of client identity are sometimes easy and sometimes hard.
A "defendant" is a general term used to describe a person who or an entity that has been accused of violating the law in some way. Unfortunately, this term commonly carries a stigma of someone who has done something wrong. However, it is extremely important to remember that a defendant has not yet stood trial, and thus must be presumed innocent. ...
Criminal defendants are people who are accused of violating the criminal laws of their state, such as burglary or false imprisonment. It may also refer to someone who is accused of violating a federal law.
Representing co-defendants is generally a conflict of interest. However, if both people agree to waive the conflict, there are some circumstances where the same attorney can represent both. It is advisable to get independent legal advice on whether you should even waive the conflict.
Technically, maybe, practically, probably not. An attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client. An attorney cannot represent two co-defendants if there is an actual conflict. If "A" says "B" did it and "B" says "A" did it, there would be an obvious conflict. An attorney could not here represent "A" and "B". If there is a potential conflict, an attorney may get "A" and "B" to agree to allow their information to be shared with the same attorney. However, this is very risky for the attorney. Should the potential conflict bloom into an actual conflict the attorney would likely be forced to withdraw from both. You should seek the advice of the state bar as well addressing the specific ethics rules for the region where the case occurs.
Technically, yes. Practically, no. The danger is that in the course of the defense, the two individuals's interests don't align, in which case the attorney would have to withdraw from both cases.
If the two people have the same interest and there is no issue as to one blaming the other, it could be possible. Most attorneys would decline to enter into such a dual representation.
When there is a conflict between the two interests then one attorney could not best represent one client without harming the interest of the other. It is never a good idea to have one attorney for more than one defendant in a case. However, it is possible if both defendants sign a statement outlining the possible conflicts and agreeing to one attorney representing both. Most competent attorneys will not represent two defendants in the same case.
Ordinarily, each person would have their own attorney, since they each would have different legal defenses possible. If, for some reason, they either have the same defense and/or waive any conflict of interest, then the same attorney can represent both. It really depends on the facts of the case and what the level of conflict is.
Yes as long as they are not blaming the other person for the fight. It is usually not a good idea to represent more than one person in a criminal matter; but it can be done as long as the two defendants are not pointing the finger at each other.
Although no Texas court has addressed the issue, a many decisions in other jurisdictions have held that, in general, the same attorney may not represent both the corporation and the individual defendants accused of serious breach of fiduciary duties to that corporation.
The true dispute is between the shareholders, and regardless of how the complaint is stated, the gravamen of the complaint is the manner in which the controlling shareholder has exercised his power over the corporation.
Ordinarily, the plaintiff is required to name the corporation as a "nominal" defendant, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff shareholder purports to represent the interests of the corporation. "In a derivative action, a plaintiff shareholder is a nominal plaintiff and the corporation on behalf of which the action is brought is merely ...
The usual situation in a shareholder derivative suit is that the shareholder is bringing a claim against those in control of the corporation (officers, directors and/or controlling shareholders) for damage done to the corporation through a breach of their fiduciary duties, such as looting the corporation's assets through excessive compensation.
Most courts have applied the conflict rule only in cases involving allegations of serious misconduct by the individual defendants. The Third Circuit held that where the claims against the individuals were merely negligence or mismanagement, that is breaches of the duty of care rather than the duty of loyalty, then disqualification was not required. Also courts do not apply the rule in derivative cases that are "patently frivolous."
The board of directors of a corporation are charged with its management, BOC § 21.401, but the board's authority must be exercised as a group—individual directors have no authority apart from the board. When a shareholder fight involves two directors, the corporation's lawyer is faced with a real dilemma.
Very frequently, the shareholder will have individual claims, such as shareholder oppression, that arise out of or relate to the transactions and occurrences that gave rise to the derivative claims, and which are properly brought in the same lawsuit.
It is a conflict of interest for an attorney to represent both the plaintiff and the defendant in the same lawsuit.
Normally it is a conflict of interests for an attorney to represent both the defendant and the plaintiff in a law suit.It is hard to fight for both sides and represent both sides equally.
You have an attorney so I cannot provide you legal advice. Ask your attorney or the state bar.