Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is in accord with the vast majority of other decisions which address the issue. See, e.g., John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union SOkA of United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO, 913 F.2d 544, 556 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1683, 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991) (co-defendant could not waive appellee’s attorney-client privilege); Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist: v. Continental Casualty Co., 142 F.R.D. 471, 478 (D.Colo.1992) (applying Colorado law in an environmental coverage dispute, the court ruled that for documents subject to a joint defense privilege, “a waiver of the privilege requires the consent of all parties participating in the joint defense.”); Construction Unlimited Corp. v. Woodfield, 1992 WL 157511, at *2, 1992 Conn.Super. LEXIS 1827, at *4 (June 15, 1992) (<HOLDING>); Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Kaplan, 90 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability (B) holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client (C) holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client (D) holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor (E) holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case
Output (English): holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client