REPRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE WITNESSES HAS SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. BECAUSE THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED WITNESSES MAY BE INVOLVED TO VARYING DEGREES OF CULPABILITY, THE ATTORNEY MAY ADVISE THAT EACH WITNESS RESPOND DIFFERENTLY TO INVESTIGATION. IF ONE WITNESS' RESPONSE RESULTS IN INJURY TO OTHER WITNESSES, THE ATTORNEY WILL HAVE BREACHED HIS LOYALTY TO THE INTERESTS OF THE INJURED PARTIES. APPROACHES ADOPTED BY CIRCUITS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS IN CONFRONTING THIS PROBLEM ARE EXAMINED. IN EACH CASE, THE TRIAL COURT HAD ORDERED JOINTLY REPRESENTED WITNESSES TO SEEK SEPARATE COUNSEL. HOWEVER, THE CIRCUIT COURTS DIFFERED IN THE DEGREE OF LATITUDE EXTENDED TO THE LOWER COURTS' DETERMINATIONS. THE FACTS AND REASONING IN THE CASES ARE REVIEWED, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CHOICE OF COUNSEL IS EXPLORED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT GRAND JURY WITNESSES HAVE NO SUCH RIGHT. EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS LEADS TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT COURTS CHARGED WITH SUPERVISING GRAND JURIES HAVE CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION IN LIMITING REPRESENTATION. FACTORS THAT COURTS SHOULD CONSIDER IN EXERCISING THAT DISCRETION ARE NOTED. (AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT MODIFIED).