Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

It could be, depending upon the circumstances, but it probably isn't.

The reasoning behind Mr. Hoffman correct analysis is that if the attorney is paid the same percentage as to both plaintiffs and neither one alleges the other was at fault for the accident, there is enough insurance coverage for both injuries, and neither intends to argue anything to decrease the recovery of the other, there is no incentive for the attorney to favor one plaintiff over the other and it is cheaper as to costs to have one attorney work up proof of liability than two. But if matters go to trial, there probably would need to be two trials to get the maximum amounts form a jury so some conflicts might arise [if the first trial brings in a good verdict, the second plaintiff benefits as there will be more offered to avoid trial, but if the the verdict is less than the demand the second case will get a lower offer]. Without more information no one can say that there would be a conflict; judges do not pay much attention to that type of conflict, assuming the clients made the decision as to joint representation.