In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Ass'n v. Woodside, 7 Cal. 4th 525, 869 P.2d 1142 (Cal. 1994), the Court held that public sector lawyers who sue to enforce their rights to bargain collectively under statutory law do not run afoul of their traditional duty of loyalty owed to their employer/client. 869 P.2d at 1157-58. The court did caution, however, that these lawyers "are held to the highest ethical obligations to continue to represent the client in the matters they have undertaken, and that a violation of their duty to represent the client competently or faithfully, or of any other rule of conduct, will subject those attorneys to the appropriate discipline, both from the employer and from the State Bar." Woodside, 869 P.2d at 1158. The court adopted the following standard: "In determining whether an action taken by an attorney or employee association violates the attorney's ethical obligations, we look not to whether the action creates antagonism between the attorney/employee and the client/employer, since such antagonism in the labor relations context is unfortunately commonplace; rather, we seek to ascertain whether an attorney has permitted that antagonism to overstep the boundaries of the employer/employee bargaining relationship and has actually compromised client representation." (Woodside, 869 P.2d at 1157.)