Laserfiche WebLink
»^ <br />DISTRIBUTION LIST <br />January 27, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />Joint representation of all of the cities in this case has certain advantages . It allows <br />the cities to present a united defense to the allegations and provides significant cost <br />savings to the individual cities. Joint representation does, however, create some <br />potential risks. The most significant risk would be that sometime later in the case <br />an actual conflict could develop between some of the defendants. If the actual <br />conflict adversely affected our relationship with another defendant, we would have <br />no option except to withdraw from representation in the case. Potentially, this <br />would include withdrawal from representing any of the defendants. <br />In making your decision as to whether you want to have joint representation, you <br />should also keep in mind the law regarding confidentiality among joint clients. When <br />a single attorney represents joint defendants, there is no confidentiality among the <br />clients themselves. In other words, whatever a particular client discloses to the <br />attorney can be disclosed to the other clients. (There is, of course, confidentiality <br />as to any third parties.) <br />You should also be aware that our firm represents four of the cities (Brooklyn <br />Center, Crystal, New Brighton and Robbinsdale) as general counsel. We also <br />represent several of the other cities as special counsel in Litigation and bond <br />matters. We are also appointed by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust <br />to defend lawsuits on behalf of Trust cities. Therefore, if a dispute about coverage <br />arose between any of the defendants and the Trust, it would not be appropriate for <br />us to represent either side on that issue. <br />Based on my review of the case, I believe that our firm's representation of each of <br />you will not adversely affect our responsibility to the other cities. I am, therefore, <br />enclosing a consent form for each city to sign agreeing to joint representation. Each <br />of the cities should discuss this issue with its attorney or other independent counsel <br />before signing the agreement. (lam also enclosing a draft resolution for your use. <br />Please feel free to modify it as you see fit.) <br />We do not believe that there will be any significant additional attorneys’ fees <br />Incurred in representing the individual cities that would not otherwise be incurred <br />as a result of defending MPRS. If this changes because of developments in ihe <br />lawsuits, we would let the affected cities know immediately. We, therefore, propose <br />to bill MPRS for our services, and the fees would be allocated to its members on <br />whatever basis the MPRS Board determines is fair. <br />If any of you have any questions concerning any issues pertaining to this matter, <br />please feel free to contact me or Charlie LeFevere and we will be happy to discuss <br />them with you. <br />Sincerely, <br />( Jamc^s^ Thomson <br />hWTijes <br />Enclosure <br />JJT47i7* <br />HPllO-l