Law firm sought to represent two chapter 11 debtor limited partnerships, which shared a common general partner, in their bankruptcies. The court concluded that the proposed dual representation presented an actual conflict of interest that precluded the law firm's representation of both debtors. Specifically, the court was concerned with each debtor's independent choice to either assert, or not assert, claims against their joint general partner. This decision was subsequently reversed by the Utah district court in 117 B.R. 678.