55 N.Y.2d 900 (1982)

A trial court has discretion to allow a party to be represented by multiple attorneys, especially when the nature of the claims suggests diverse interests.

Summary

Chemprene, Inc. appealed an order compelling them to choose a single attorney. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Chemprene to be represented by two attorneys. The court emphasized that the nature of the claims could suggest diverse interests necessitating multiple representation. Any conflicts arising from having multiple attorneys should be resolved by the trial court during litigation, considering the factual or contractual reasons for such representation, such as insurance contracts governing insurer-insured relationships.

Facts

The specific facts underlying the dispute between Chemprene, Inc. and X-Tyal International Corp. are not detailed in this per curiam opinion. However, the central issue revolves around Chemprene’s decision to be represented by two separate attorneys in the case.

Procedural History

The defendant, X-Tyal International Corp., moved to compel the plaintiff, Chemprene, Inc., to select only one attorney to represent them. The trial court initially allowed Chemprene to maintain two attorneys. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, but the Court of Appeals then modified the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the trial court’s discretion to allow multiple attorneys.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the plaintiff to be represented by two attorneys.

Holding

No, because the decision to allow multiple attorneys is within the trial court’s discretion, and in this instance, the nature of the claims suggested the possibility of diverse interests necessitating two attorneys.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Lazer’s dissent at the Appellate Division, emphasizing the trial court’s broad discretion in managing trial proceedings. The court noted that the claims involved could suggest diverse interests requiring multiple representation. The court stated that any conflicts arising from multiple representation should be addressed by the trial court, taking into account the factual or contractual basis for having multiple attorneys. For instance, if an insurance contract dictated the relationship between insurer and insured, that would be a relevant factor in the trial court’s exercise of discretion. The court reasoned that the trial court is in the best position to manage the litigation and resolve any potential conflicts arising from the dual representation. The Court implicitly recognized the potential for differing strategies or priorities between the two attorneys and placed the responsibility on the trial court to oversee these issues. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of affording trial courts flexibility in managing complex litigation, acknowledging that rigid rules regarding attorney representation may not always serve the interests of justice. The Court stated, “The conflicts, if any, which may arise by virtue of the representation of the plaintiff by more than one attorney of record should be resolved by the trial court during the course of the litigation.”