There are 2 co-plantiffs vs 2 defenandants in a civil action, The defendants are a company and its independant contractor. Company defendant...

Question

There are 2 co-plantiffs vs 2 defenandants in a civil action, The defendants are a company and its independant contractor. Company defendant wins wins summary judgement. Liability of independantc ontractor not part of dismissal on summary judgement. Same attorney represents both plantiffs. Plantiffs attorney gets a re consideration hearing vs company. Hearing has not yet taken place. Due to financial reasons, one plantiff does not want to go farther vs company. That plantiff still wants to go after i/c defendant. Plantiff that opts out signs mutual release with company. Now plantiffs attorney refuses to represent that plantiff vs i/c claiming conflict of interest. Also,that this plantiffs removal from this part of the action prejudices the other plantiffs chances of success vs company and i/c. Is the position of the attorney valid or weak and why ??? FYI Plantiff mutual release was to avoid award of attorney fees to company defendant.

Answer

You make general allegations without specific facts as to why there is a conflict. An attorney can seek withdrawal from the court if they believe they cannot represent the client, undue hardship, conflict of interest, etc.

Answer

The plaintiff who settled with the company now has an incentive to argue that all of the fault lies with the contractor. The other plaintiff has no such incentive, and may actually have reasons to argue that the company is more to blame. A lawyer would be hard-pressed to represent both plaintiffs in that situation. That isn't necessarily what's happening here, but it seems likely.

Additionally, if the settling plaintiff went behind his lawyer's back to reach this agreement, the lawyer would likely find it difficult to maintain a trusting relationship with him. That's not a conflict of interests, but it is a good reason for counsel to withdraw.

And yes, the first plaintiff's settlement may very well weaken the second plaintiff's case against the company. For one thing, the second plaintiff now bears all of the risk associated with losing that part of the case; his increased risk gives him more incentive to settle and thus puts the company in a better bargaining position. The company may also be able to argue at trial that the first plaintiff's decision not to proceed means he realized their arguments were weak.