within the res judicata.” Thus, privity centers on the closeness of the relationship in question. Courts have held that the attorney-client relationship itself establishes privity. See, e.g., Plotner v. AT & T Corp., 224 F.3d 1161, 1169 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1235 n. 6 (7th Cir.1986)) (“The law firm defendants appear by virtue of their activities as representatives of Green and AT & T, also creating privity.”); Henry, 808 F.2d at 1235 n. 6 (“Even though the Bank was the only actual party to the state court mortgage foreclosure proceedings, the other defendants, as directors, officers, employees, and attorneys of the Bank, are in privity with the Bank for purposes of res judicata.”); Verhagen v. Arroyo, 552 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (<HOLDING>); see also 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments § 617. But
holding that defendant in second suit was in privity for res judicata purposes because his interests were aligned with those of defendant in first suit which concerned same facts holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state 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 that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client 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