CC PACKET 02091993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED AUarDeys al Law JOHN M.LEMML JR. 470 Pillsbury Center.Minneapolis.Minnesota 55402 ROBERT J.UNDALL (612)337.9300 LAURA K.MOLL.ET ROBERT A ALSOP D H.BATTY BARBARA L PORTWOOD Aft"PHII�I J BUBUL Facsimile(612)337.9310 JAaas M.STROMMEN Jo1�t E J. JAxm J.THOMSON.Js. MARY L IIbBBDQS LARRY M.WERTNLIM BONNIE L STEFANIE N.GALEY INTER CORRIN`e A.HEINE GARY P.WINTER JAh=S.HOLMYS WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL. DAvW L GRAVLN(1929 lvrq DAvmJ.K1ANEDY 337-9209 OF COUNSEL JOHN R.L.ARsow ROBERT C.CARISON WELLINGTON H.LAW CHABL.ES L LEFEVERE ROBERT L DAVIDSON January 27, 1993 DISTRIBUTION LIST RE: John Starks v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al. and Christopher Fields v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al. The MPRS Board decided at its meeting yesterday to continue to have our law firm represent MPRS in the lawsuits. The purpose of this letter is to determine whether the individual cities would also like us to jointly represent them. The core of the joint defense would be that MPRS and the cities did not discriminate, and that in any case, defendants' actions and omissions did not cause damages to plaintiffs. The Rules of Professional Responsibility allow an attorney to jointly represent multiple defendants in a civil action as long as the attorney is not materially limited by his or her responsibilities to another defendant and as long as the attorney reasonably believes that his or her representation will not be adversely affected. Each client must consent to the joint representation after consultation with the attorney. The attorney for each of the cities in this case owes that city an obligation to defend the case vigorously on its behalf. There is always the potential that a conflict between the defendants could develop. Based on my review of the facts and background to this case, there is no actual conflict of interest at the present time that would prevent a single attorney from defending the case vigorously on behalf of each of the individual defendants. There may be issues that apply to some defendants and not to others. For example, there is an allegation regarding a civil service violation that applies to only 13 cities. In addition, some cities supplement the MPRS system in their recruitment and hiring process. Another example is that some cities use MPRS less frequently than others. In defending each city on these issues, there may be facts that are more favorable to some cities than to others. At the present time, these differences seem only to make some defenses more or less attractive to different defendants. I do not see those partially divergent facts creating an actual conflict of interest that would affect the core defenses. It is always possible, however, that a judge or jury could conclude that only some defendants are liable and not others because of different facts. There is also the possibility that the plaintiffs would be willing to settle with only some defendants, or that some defendants would have different settlement • incentives. JJT47876 MP110-1