In a 2-to-1 decision, the majority held that an attorney hired by a city to represent multiple defendants could not bring a cross claim against the city and codefendants. "Clients should not be put in a position where they must fret over whether the confidential information they disclosed to their previous attorney will later be used against them. Wasserman v. Black, 910 S.W.2d 564, 1995 Tex.App. Lexis 2290. {N/R}
     A union member was precluded from suing an union-provided attorney for malpractice. The union selected and compensated the attorney; there was no attorney-client relationship. "Although the attorney may well have certain ethical obligations to the grievant, his principal client is the union; it is the union that has retained him, is paying for his services, and is frequently the party to the arbitration proceedings." Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244/at 1258 (9th Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Where a county sheriff is sued both his official and individual capacities, the county attorney cannot represent him solely in his official capacity. Separate representation for the official in his two capacities is a "wise precaution." "Though separate representation is permissible, an attorney may not undertake only the official capacity representation at his or her sole convenience." Johnson v. Bd. of Cmsnrs. of Fremont, 85 F.3d 489, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 13256 (10th Cir.). affirming 868 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1994). {N/R}
     Separate representation of a public official or employee is required in the face of the potential conflict, Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 796 F.Supp. 84 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). {N/R}
     Where the govermental entity concedes that an employee or official acted in furtherance of official policy, there is no conflict in representing multiple police officer defendants, who were sued for federal civil rights violations. The city did not have to agree to a union demand to employ separate counsel. Galligan v. City of Schenectady, 116 A.D.2d 798, 497 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1986 N.Y. App.Div. Lexis 51636. {N/R}
     Safety director who appointed his brother as police chief violated statute which prohibits involvement in a matter where a relative has a financial interest. Other captains could sue and need not complain to civil service board. Sciuto v. City of Lawrence, 452 N.E.2d 1148 (Mass. 1983).
     There is no constitutional, statutory, or ethical authority allowing a govvernment attorney to represent government clients one day and to give them legal advice with regard to pending litigation, then withdraw, and sue the same clients the next day on a purported cause of action arising out of the identical controversy. People ex rel. The Calif. Attorney General was removed as counsel for the represented party. Deukmejian v. Brown 29 Cal.3d 150, 172 Cal.Rptr. 478, 624 P.2d 1206 (1981). The decision was followed in Civil Serv. Cmsn. v. Superior County, 163 Cal.App.3d 70, 1984 Cal.App. Lexis 2881, 209 Cal.Rptr. 159, involving the San Diego County Counsel. {N/R}