Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Typically, the following four policy considerations are cited: First, the potential of a claim interferes with a lawyer’s obligation of undivided loyalty. Second, allowing a claim creates a conflict of interest with the client and potential problems for the lawyer as a witness, which may require withdrawal or disqualification. Third, the lawyer’s independent judgment is adversely influenced by the risk of a claim, interfering with the lawyer’s counseling role. Fourth, the lawyer’s need to defend a contribution or indemnity claim may imperil the client’s confidences. MALLEN & SMITH, supra, at 898. Nonetheless, a significant number of well-reasoned decisions concur with the Supreme Judicial Court’s holding in Maddocks. See, e.g., Goran v. Glieberman, 659 N.E.2d 56, 61 (Ill.App.Ct. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Strockbridge, 756 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy (B) holding contribution claim against attorney not contrary to illinois public policy (C) holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth (D) holding that for public policy reasons the mere filing of a bar complaint by a defendant against his attorney does not mandate removal of the attorney (E) recognizing a right to contribution
Output (English): holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy