The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.d. Starks/Field MPRS Attorney Confirmation : 1 ' + , HOLMES & GRAVEN CAARTF•RED Attoroe�s at Law JoHN M.1.EFEVY.t.,iR. 4'JD Ptlkbur�Center,Mlnneapolts,Minnesota 55402 ROSEAT J.LINDALL ROlEAT A.AISOP (612)337-9300 LAURA K.MOLLEF RONALD H.BATTY BAHEAR�►L POYtWOOD �.�J.B��y Facalmtle(612)337-9310 JAi�s M.S'CY4t�N Jaa�B.Dwv J�s J.Tao�asoN,n NUAY G.DOlDQdB LARBY M.WERIHEIM &T�FANd N.GALeY � BONME L WII.I�1S GORRINB A.HEtIVE GA4Y P.WtM'E� JAMEs S.HOUNLs WRITER'S DIRF.CT QIAL DAVID L.GItAVEtt(1929.isli� oAv�n,t.��,r 337-9209 oF��, Jot�r R I.��sox t+4�[.tnvaroN H.i.�w RosFs�r C.CeYLsox CH,►sl.ts L I�FevErtE RosFrtl'L.D�vIDsoN January 27, 1993 DISTRIBUTION LIST RE: John Starks v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al. and Christopher Fields v. Minnesota Police Recruitment Svstem, 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 ftesponsibility 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 ea.ch 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 aetual confliet of interest at the present time that would prevent a single attorney from defending the case vigorously on behalf of eaeh 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 eivil service violation that applies to only 13 cities. In addition, some cities supplement the MPR.S system in their recruitment and hiring process. Another example is that some cities use MPftS less frequently than others. In defending eaeh city on these issues, there may be faets 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 di.fferent 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 liabie 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. JJTd7876 l�110-1 � y DISTRIBUTION LIST January 27, 1993 Page 2 Joint representation of all of the cities in this case has certain advantages. It allows the cities to present a united defense to the allegations and provides significant cost savings to the individual cities. Joint representation does, however, create some potential risks. The most significant risk would be that sometime later in the case an actual conflict could develop between some of the defendants. If the actual eonflict adversely affeeted our relationship with another defendant, we would have no option except to withdraw from representation in the case. Potentially, this would include withdrawal from representing any of the defendants. In making your decision as to whether you waut to have joint representation, you should also keep in mind the law regarding confidentiality among joint clients. When a single attorney represents joint defendants, there is no confidentiality among the elients themselves. In other wards, whatever a particular client discloses to the attorney ca.n be disclosed to the other clients. (There is, of course, confidentiality as to any third parties.} You should also be aware that our firm represents four of the cities (Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Brightan and Robbinsdale} as general counsel. We also represent several of the other cities as special counsel in litigation and bond matters. We are also appointed by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust to defend lawsuits on behalf of Trust cities. Therefore, if a dispute about coverage arose between any of the defendants and the Trust, it would not be appropriate for us to represent either side on that issue. Based on my review of the case, I believe that our firm's representation of each of you will not adversely affect our responsibility to the other cities. I am, therefore, enclosing a consent form for each city to sign agreeing to joint representation. Each of the cities should discuss this issue with its attorney or other independent counsel before signing the agreement. (I am also enclosing a draft resolution for your use. Please feel free to modify it as yau see fit.) We do not believe that there will be any significant additional attorneys' fees incurred in representing the individual cities that would not otherwise be incurred as a result of defending MPRS. If this changes beca.use of developments in the lawsuits, we would let the affected cities know immediately. We, therefore, propose to hill MPRS for our services, and the fees would be allocated to its members on whatever basis the MPRS Board determines is fair. If any of you have any questions concerning any issues pertaining to this matter, please feel free to contact me or Charlie LeFevere and we will be happy to discuss them with you. Sineerely, � Ja es . Thomson :jes Enclosure JJT47876 I�110-1 � + dOINT D�ENSE AGREIII�ENT R.ecitals 1. The City of ("City") has been named as a defendant in two actions filed in the Fourth Judicial District, File Nos. 93-00218 and 00219, entitled John Starks v. Minnesota Police Recruitment Svstem, et al. and ��ristopher Fields v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al, {"Lawsuits"). The plaintiffs in the Lawsuits allege that the defendants have allegedly engaged in activities that result in a ra.cial discriminatory impact on the plaintiffs. The complaints name as defendants 36 cities and the Minnesota Police Recruitment System. 2. The City has been advised by the firm of Holmes & Graven in a letter dated January 27, 1993 of the ramifications, including the advantages and risks, involved in having a single law firm jointly represent all of the defendants in the Lawsuits. The City has also been advised by Holmes & Graven that it should consult with independent counsel as to whether it should agree to be jointly represented by one attorney in the case. 3. The City believes that it is in its best interests to retain Holmes & Graven to defend the City in the case and to have Holmes & Graven jointly represent the other defendants in the Lawsuits. A�reement Based on the above recitals, the City agrees as follows: 1. The City retains the firm of Holmes & Graven to represent it i.n the Lawsuits and consents to having Holmes & Graven represent the other defendants in the Lawsuits. The City understands that Holmes & Graven will bill MPRS and that the allocation of defense costs will be decided by the MPRS Board. Jsra�Teo 1 r�iio-i a �. ,r 2. The City understands that by entering into this agreement that confidential communications between itself and Fiolmes & Graven may be discussed by Holmes & Graven with the other defendants. � 3. By entering into this Agreement, the City daes not waive any attorney/client, work product privilege, right of immunity, which the City or its attorney may be entitled to invoke. The City specifically is not waiving these rights as to any third party that is not a defendant in the Lawsuits. 4. The City may revoke this Agreement at any time by providing written notice to Holmes &'Graven. Date: CITY OF By Its JJT47760 1�110-1 . ' 2 � �.<�.. � � CITY OF ROSEMOIINT DAROTA COIINTY, MINN�SOTA RESOLUTION 1993 - � A RESOLUTION AIITHORIZING HOLMES & GRAVEN T0 REPRESENT TSE CITY OF ROSF�iOtTNT IN LAWSIIITS COI�Il++iENCED BY JOHN STARRS AND CHRISTOPHER FIELDS �THEREAS, the City of Rosemount has been named, along with 35 other municipalities and the Minnesota Police Recruitment System, as a defendant in two lawsuits commenced by John Starks and Christopher Fields; WIiEREAS, the Minnesota Police Recruitment System has retained the firm of Holmes & Graven to defend it in the lawsuits; and WHEREAS, the Gity of Rosemount believes that it is in its best interest to defend the case jointly with the Minnesota Police Recruitment System. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount that Holmes & Graven is authorized to represent it in the lawsuits commenced by John Starks and Christopher Fields. ADOPTED this 2nd day of February, 1993 . E. B. McMenomy, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Wal.sh, City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor• Voted against•