June 2026
The Insurance Carrier Problem: When the“ Assigned Attorney” Represents Everyone
One of the most overlooked realities in police litigation is the practical role insurance carriers and joint insurance funds play in directing the defense of municipal lawsuits.
In many cases, once a lawsuit is filed, the municipality’ s insurance carrier or Joint Insurance Fund immediately assigns one defense attorney to represent all defendants— the municipality, the police department, supervisors, and the chief personally.
At first glance, this may appear efficient and cost-effective. Chiefs are often reassured that“ the town attorney is handling it” or that“ the insurance company appointed counsel for everyone.” In some instances, chiefs may even be discouraged from seeking independent counsel because doing so could allegedly“ complicate the case” or“ increase costs.”
That approach, however, ignores a critical legal reality: the attorney assigned by the carrier ultimately owes duties to the insured entities whose financial interests the carrier is protecting— primarily the municipality itself.
Even highly competent municipal defense attorneys face an inherent structural tension when attempting to represent both the municipality and an individually named chief simultaneously.
The municipality’ s primary concern is often:
• limiting financial exposure;
• protecting insurance coverage;
• minimizing institutional liability;
• avoiding adverse findings against the governing body; and
• controlling settlement risk.
The chief’ s concerns are frequently much different:
• protecting professional reputation;
• avoiding personal liability exposure;
• preserving future employment opportunities;
• defending professional judgment and operational decisions;
• avoiding punitive damage claims; and
• protecting certifications, licenses, and career standing.
In fact, insurance carriers and municipalities sometimes quietly benefit from strategies that isolate operational responsibility onto the chief personally while insulating the municipality itself. A municipality may survive politically and financially even after criticizing or distancing itself from the chief’ s conduct. The chief, however, may suffer permanent professional consequences.
This becomes especially dangerous during:
• sworn depositions;
• internal strategy discussions;
• settlement negotiations;
• expert witness evaluations;
• disciplinary reviews;
• coverage disputes; and
• determinations regarding indemnification.
A chief relying solely on jointly assigned counsel may incorrectly assume that every strategic decision being made is focused equally on protecting the chief personally. In reality, the broader municipal exposure frequently drives litigation strategy.
This is precisely why independent counsel matters.
A chief’ s personally retained or separately assigned attorney has only one client: the chief.
That attorney’ s sole responsibility is protecting the chief’ s legal interests, professional reputation, career standing, and individual liability exposure— without balancing competing municipal priorities.
Independent counsel can:
• identify emerging conflicts early;
• protect privileged communications;
• independently evaluate settlement positions;
• challenge attempts to shift blame solely onto the chief;
• ensure the chief fully understands personal exposure risks; and
• advise the chief regarding issues beyond the municipality’ s institutional concerns.
Importantly, seeking independent counsel should never be viewed as disloyalty to the municipality.
It is a prudent legal safeguard.
Experienced chiefs understand that litigation involving police administration, policy decisions, supervision, training, discipline, staffing, or command judgment can
Continued on page 18
Those interests are not always identical.
New Jersey Police Chief Magazine / 10