Laserfiche WebLink
<br />between the Robertses and their family business as they attempt <br />to reorganize their debts, and the debts between the two are not <br />in dispute nor was any priority requested or obtained relative <br />thereto." 75 Bankr. at 409. ,egg also, In In re Vanderbilt <br />Associates. Ltd., 117 Bankr. 678 (D. Utah 1990) (inquiry is <br />whether a conflict manifests itself cuffieient to prohibit <br />representation; actual, not potential, conflict prohibited; cost- <br />efficient to have dual representation). <br />5. The present cases fall squarely within the <br />rationale of In re Roberts permitting dual representation where <br />there are no actual conflicts. The Debtors and LeBoeuf has <br />carefully considered the admonition of In re Roberts that "[d]ual <br />representation must always be entered into with caution and close <br />scrutiny by an attorney because of the danger that a conflict of <br />interest exists or might arise." 75 Bankr. at 405. Although <br />joint representation of multiple corporate affiliates may not be <br />appropriate in other circumstances, the facts of these cases <br />demonstrate the propriety o! Debtors' employing the same <br />reorganization counsel. LeBoauf is also mindful of the Roberts <br />eourt'c holding that "counsel should not petition the court for <br />employment unless counsel conscientiously believes that there are <br />no conflicts or that potential conflicts nre outweighed by other <br />legally cognizable factors." 75 Bankr. at 411. For the <br />following reasons, LeBoeuf and the Debtors have concluded that <br />Debtors in these eases have a unity of interest rather than any <br />conflict of interest and that it would not bs in the interest of <br />5 <br />