Laserfiche WebLink
JOINTREPRESENTATIONAGREEMENTCONFLICTOFINTERESTWAIVERTheClientsdenyanyobligationtojointlydefendthiscase,butnonethelesshaveelectedtodosoduetothecommonalityofinterest.Thisjointdefenseagreementshallalsoapplytoanyadditionalinvestigation,action,arbitration,litigation,mediation,orproceedingthatmaybetakeninconnectionwithorrelatingtotheClaim.Duringthependencyofthejointdefense,CityandWSBeachagreetocooperatetorespondtoanddefendtheClaimattheirownexpenseexceptasotherwiseprovidedunderthisagreement,whilerecognizingthatElisaHatlevigofJardine,Logan&O’Brien,PLLPandJoelJamnikandCampbellKnutson,P.A.,willdefendandrepresenttheinterestoftheCityinthependinglitigationsubjecttothefollowingagreement.HeleyDuncan&MelandershallrepresenttheinterestsofWSB.“Attorneys”areCampbellKnutson,P.A.,andtheirpartnersandassociates,Jardine,Logan&O’Brien,PLLP,andtheirpartnersandassociatesandHeleyDuncan&Melander,PLLP,andtheirpartnersandassociates.“Clients”areCityofArdenHills(“City”)andWSBandAssociates,Inc.(“WSB”)TheCityretainedWSBtoprovideprofessionalservicesfortheOldSnellingTrainExtension&WaterMainImprovements,CityProjectNumberPW-17-0100[hereinafter:Project].SunramConstruction,Inc.submittedthelowbidandtheCityretainedSunramConstruction(“Sunram”)tocompleteconstructionworkattheProject.SunramhasnowinitiatedaclaimagainsttheCityseekingadditionalcompensationforservicesprovidedunderitscontract,includingspecificallyclaimsforadditionalcompensationforretainingwalls,trafficcontrolsignalsandextraconcreteworkforcatchbasins.SunramhasassertedclaimsfordamagesallegingbreachofcontractandunjustenrichmentinSunramConstruction,Inc.v.CityofArdenHills[hereinafter:theClaim],TheCityandWSBdeniedtheClaim.3.Conflictsofinterestmayalsoincludedisputesoverthepaymentofproportionalsettlements,judgments,orappealcostsinconnectiontheClaim.Bysigningthiswaiver,Clientsagreethattheywillretainseparatecounseltoadvocatetheirinterests.1.MinnesotaRulesofProfessionalConduct1.7providesthatalawyer“[s]hallnotrepresentaclientifthatrepresentationmaybemateriallylimitedbylawyer’sprofessionalresponsibilitiestoanotherclient...unless...thelawyerreasonablybelievestherepresentationwillnotbeadverselyaffected...”and“theclientconsentsafterconsultation.”Thisagreementshallconstituteanexplanationoftheimplicationsofcommonrepresentationinasinglematterandadescriptionoftheadvantagesandrisksinvolved.2.Oftenclientsdefendingagainstadamagesclaimobtainseparatecounseltorepresenttheirdistinctinterestsinalawsuit.InchoosingtohaveattorneyscollaborativelyrepresenttheClients,theClientseachforgoattributingfaulttotheother.ThisisbecauseAttorneyscannotandwillnotinvestigateoranalyzewaysforoneclienttoblameanyoftheothersforPlaintiffsallegeddamage.TodosowouldbeabreachofAttorneys’attorney-clientrelationshipwitheachclient.