BOTH THE HOSTAGE-TAKING SITUATION WHICH RESULTED IN THE CASE OF STATE V. KIRITSIS (1977) AND THE PRISON RIOT IN 1971 AT NEW YORK STATE'S ATTICA PRISON INVOLVED THE USE OF ATORNEYS IN THE CAREFUL NEGOTIATIONS. THESE LAWYERS HAD AN OBVIOUS DUTY TO ADVISE OFFICIALS ON THE LEGAL LIMITATIONS OF THE USE OF FORCE, THE BEST METHODS OF PRESERVING EVIDENCE, AND THE PROPER ASSURANCE FOR THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN ARRESTS. HOWEVER, THEY ALSO HAD OBLIGATIONS TO THE OFFENDERS IN THESE SITUATIONS, NOT JUST TO SEE THAT THE ARRESTS WERE VALID, BUT TO OFFER THE OFFENDERS THE FULL SERVICES OF DEFENSE COUNSEL. WHILE THE PROSECUTORS IN A HOSTAGE SITUATION MAY HAVE THE PRIMARY GOAL OF PREVENTING HARM TO THE HOSTAGE, THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED HAD TO BE LOYAL TO THEIR CLIENTS-IN-FACT. THE DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE CONFRONTED WITH AN ETHICAL DILEMMA WHEN THE PROSECUTORS ENCOURAGED THEIR COLLABORATION IN SCHEMES TO OBTAIN THE HOSTAGE'S RELEASE. WHILE BEING EQUALLY CONCERNED FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE INVOLVED, THE DEFENSE DID NOT WISH TO SEE THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFERS OF IMMUNITY BE SUMMARILY REVOKED. A LAWYER INVOLVED WITH A CLIENT WHO IS COMMITTING A CRIME SHOULD CONVINCE HIS CLIENT TO STOP THE ACTIVITY. THE UNLAWFUL ACTIONS OF THE CLIENT LESSEN THE STANDARD OF LOYALTY OWED BY THE LAWYER TO THE CLIENT. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TK)