In Meigel v. Schulman (24 Misc 3d 1242[A], 901 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2009 NY Slip Op 51853[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County, Saitta, J.), the same court again recognized the "inherent conflict of interest"; and further held that even where there is a provision in the lease requiring the driver to indemnify the leasing company for any losses arising from the use of the vehicle, there is still an inherent conflict of interest where "there is a possibility that the leasing company may have been negligent." (See 2009 NY Slip Op 51853U at 2.) In Meigel, the court disqualified the law firm from representing the driver even though the law firm submitted an affidavit from the driver admitting that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. In Meigel, the court noted that it was "difficult to imagine an attorney, who represented only the driver, agreeing that the leasing company was not negligent based on the fact that the driver, who is not an expert, thought there was nothing wrong with the car"; that an attorney representing only the driver would procure such an affidavit from the driver; that "an independent counsel would almost certainly at a minimum insist on conducting discovery" of the leasing company's maintenance and service records; that the driver would need for separate counsel to "evaluate whether there was a basis to argue" the inapplicability of the Graves Amendment to a particular case; and that "there may be situations in which independent counsel would conclude that having the leasing company remain in the case, if there is a legal basis for doing so, may increase the chances of a favorable settlement". These concerns, which may have been issues in this case had the driver, Mr. Regina, had separate counsel, are all relevant to the determination as to the first prong of Rule 1.7(b), i.e., whether "the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client."