[brief] In both Federal and State Court, Appellant objected to the multiple representation of Defendant’s [...] and the individual police officers, [...] and [...], by the [...].  *Aa52-53; Aa236-37; Aa239-40.*  In federal court, Appellant argued that the local rules of this Court provide that New Jersey Court rules shall govern the conduct of attorneys who appear in this Court.  See Rule 6 (as amended), Rules of the United States District Court for District of New Jersey.  Rule 1:14 of the New Jersey Court rules incorporates the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the American Bar Association.  Thus, District Courts are led to the applicable disciplinary rule DR5-105.  That rule provides that “a lawyer may represent multiple clients [only] if it is obvious that he can adequately represent the interest of each. ”  *United States v. Dolan*, 570 F.2d 1177, 1184 (3d Cir. 1978), quoting ABA Code of Professional Responsibility DR5-105(C).  Appellant made clear that Defendants [...] and [...]’s interests are conflicting in that [...] falsified his police report and trial testimony against Defendant.  Compl at ¶¶23-24,27-29,32.  [...], in the absence of personal knowledge, however, testified before the grand jury based upon the false information in [...]’s report.  Because [...]’s false testimony was not based upon his involvement in the investigation or arrest of Defendant but based upon the result of [...]’s false report, both [...] and [...] have conflicting interest.  Simply, [...]’s interest in exculpating himself by pointing the finger at [...] by saying that he unknowingly relied on [...]’s falsified report is a probable conclusion.  As a result, Appellant reasoned that [...] and [...] must, therefore, find new counsel.  The federal court, unfortunately, did not address the multiple representation and inherent conflict.  Upon remand to the State Court, Appellant objected again to defense counsel’s multiple representation of [...] and all of the individual codefendant employees as being prohibited by RPC 1.7(b)(1), RPC 1.8(k) and RPC 1.8(l).  These rules reflect “‘the fundamental understanding that an attorney will give complete and undivided loyalty to the client’ [and] ‘should be able to advise the client in such a way as to protect the client’s interests, utilizing his professional training, ability and judgment to the utmost. ””  J.G. Ries & Sons, Inc. v. Spectraserv, Inc., 384 N.J. Super. 216, 223 (App. Div. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting State ex rel. S.G., 175 N.J. 132, 139 (2003)).  Further, a conflict of interest may preclude a lawyer from representing co-defendants.  See In re Petition for Review of Op. 552 of the Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, 102 N.J. 194, 208 (1986) (recognizing potential conflict of interest in representing co-defendants in the context of municipal government and its officers); Kramer v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 371 N.J. Super. 580, 602-05 (App. Div. 2004) (discussing conflicts of interest in the joint representation of a corporation and individual defendants).  Appellant argued that in this case, there has been no conflict assessment, conflict waiver or any proffered statements on the record indicating that counsel’s multiple representation has been undertaken within the governing, RPC, Court Rules and common law.  In the absence of the Edison Defendant’s counsel satisfying explicit obligations related to conflict mitigation, his continued representation remains impermissible.  As such this Court should direct that the [...] Defendant’s hire separate lawyers.  CONCLUSION