dual representation, amount to a violation of his fiduciary duty? In the court’s opinion, in either event, Howell breached his duty of loyalty to the Marshes. Notwithstanding Howell’s current assertion that he always considered the Marshes to be his only clients, to the exclusion of Wallace, it seems more likely he never had a clear understanding of whom he was representing. What is even more likely, in the court’s view, is that, whether or not he viewed himself as doing so, Howell undertook to represent both sides to get the transaction closed; and by doing so without disclosing to the Marshes the manifest potential for conflict of interest and hence without obtaining their informed consent to his representation, he violated his fiduciary duty to them. See Foster, 528 So.2d at 268 (<HOLDING>). The court does recognize that Kirk Marsh has
holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract holding that the commissioner has an obligation to refuse to grant a patent if he believes that doing so would be contrary to law holding that even if the lawyer reasonably believes and from an objective point of view believes he can faithfully represent dual parties with adverse interests he must still fully explain all implications of the advantages as well as the risks of his representation to both parties and assure himself that they both have given knowing and informed consent holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties holding that the consent of both parties is required to annul their contract