belief that there was an attorney-client relationship, the belief must have been reasonable. Nelson, 823 F.Supp. at 1445. Here there was no reasonable basis for Cole’s belief that SC & F represented her individually. Cole ignores the fact that she consulted the law firm only for the purpose of carrying out her duties as princi pal. Rule 1.13 provides that a lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents. Although a lawyer is obligated not to disclose the information revealed by the client’s constituents or employees, “[t]his does not mean, ..., that constituents of an organizational client are the clients of the lawyer.” Rule 1.13 cmt. See also Bieter Co. v. Blomquist, 132 F.R.D. 220, 224 (D.Minn.1990) (<HOLDING>). The information Cole communicated to the law
holding that under florida law for the purposes of collateral estoppel an attorney is in privity with his or her client in a previous suit when the opposing party in that action brings a subsequent suit against the attorney based in the same facts holding plans suit against law firm for constructive trust was a suit for appropriate equitable relief holding that law firm which had formerly represented joint venture was not disqualified from representing opposing party in subsequent suit against two of ventures constituents holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit holding that it was immaterial for conflict of interest purposes whether one attorney or two attorneys in the same firm represented the witness and the defendant