Current through Register Vol. 39, No. 6, September 16, 2024
(a) While
lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a
client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so
by Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of
the prohibited lawyer, including a prohibition under Rule 6.6, and the
prohibition does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the
representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.
(b) When a lawyer has terminated an
association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter
representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client
represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by
the firm, unless:
(1) the matter is the same
or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer
represented the client; and
(2) any
lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c)
that is material to the matter.
(c) When a lawyer becomes associated with a
firm, no lawyer associated in the firm shall knowingly represent a person in a
matter in which that lawyer is disqualified under Rule 1.9 unless:
(1) the personally disqualified lawyer is
timely screened from any participation in the matter; and
(2) written notice is promptly given to any
affected former client to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions
of this Rule.
(d) A
disqualification prescribed by this rule may be waived by the affected client
under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.
(e) The disqualification of lawyers
associated in a firm with former or current government lawyers is governed by
Rule 1.11.
Comment
Definition of "Firm"
[1] For purposes of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, the term "firm" denotes lawyers in a law partnership, professional
corporation, sole proprietorship or other association authorized to practice
law; or lawyers employed in a legal services organization or the legal
department of a corporation or other organization. See Rule 1.0(d). Whether two
or more lawyers constitute a firm within this definition can depend on the
specific facts. See Rule 1.0, Comments [2] - [4].
Principles of Imputed Disqualification
[2] The rule of imputed disqualification
stated in paragraph (a) gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client
as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Such situations can be
considered from the premise that a firm of lawyers is essentially one lawyer
for purposes of the rules governing loyalty to the client, or from the premise
that each lawyer is vicariously bound by the obligation of loyalty owed by each
lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated. Paragraph (a) operates only among
the lawyers currently associated in a firm. When a lawyer moves from one firm
to another, the situation is governed by Rules 1.9(b) and 1.10(b).
[3] The rule in paragraph (a) does not
prohibit representation where neither questions of client loyalty nor
protection of confidential information are presented. Where one lawyer in a
firm could not effectively represent a given client because of strong political
beliefs, for example, but that lawyer will do no work on the case and the
personal beliefs of the lawyer will not materially limit the representation by
others in the firm, the firm should not be disqualified. On the other hand, if
an opposing party in a case were owned by a lawyer in the law firm, and others
in the firm would be materially limited in pursuing the matter because of
loyalty to that lawyer, the personal disqualification of the lawyer would be
imputed to all others in the firm.
[4] The rule in paragraph (a) also does not
prohibit representation by others in the law firm where the person prohibited
from involvement in a matter is a nonlawyer, such as a paralegal or legal
secretary. Nor does paragraph (a) prohibit representation if the lawyer is
prohibited from acting because of events before the person became a lawyer, for
example, work that the person did while a law student. Such persons, however,
ordinarily must be screened from any personal participation in the matter to
avoid communication to others in the firm of confidential information that both
the nonlawyers and the firm have a legal duty to protect. See Rules 1.0(l) and
5.3.
[5] Rule 1.10(b) operates to
permit a law firm, under certain circumstances, to represent a person with
interests directly adverse to those of a client represented by a lawyer who
formerly was associated with the firm. The Rule applies regardless of when the
formerly associated lawyer represented the client. However, the law firm may
not represent a person with interests adverse to those of a present client of
the firm, which would violate Rule 1.7. Moreover, the firm may not represent
the person where the matter is the same or substantially related to that in
which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client and any other
lawyer currently in the firm has material information protected by Rules 1.6
and 1.9(c).
[6] Where the
conditions of paragraph (c) are met, imputation is removed, and consent to the
new representation is not required. Lawyers should be aware, however, that
courts may impose more stringent obligations in ruling upon motions to
disqualify a lawyer from pending litigation.
[7] Requirements for screening procedures are
stated in Rule 1.0(l). Paragraph (c)(2) does not prohibit the screened lawyer
from receiving a salary or partnership share established by prior independent
agreement, nor does it specifically prohibit the receipt of a part of the fee
from the screened matter. However, Rule 8.4(c) prohibits the screened lawyer
from participating in the fee if such participation was impliedly or explicitly
offered as an inducement to the lawyer to become associated with the
firm.
[8] Notice, including a
description of the screened lawyer's prior representation and of the screening
procedures employed, generally should be given as soon as practicable after the
need for screening becomes apparent.
[9] Rule 1.10(d) removes imputation with the
informed consent of the affected client under the conditions stated in Rule
1.7. The conditions stated in Rule 1.7 require the lawyer to determine that the
representation is not prohibited by Rule 1.7(b) and that each affected client
has given informed consent to the representation, confirmed in writing. In some
cases, the risk may be so severe that the conflict may not be cured by client
consent. For a discussion of the effectiveness of client waivers of conflicts
that might arise in the future, see Rule 1.7, Comment [22]. For a definition of
informed consent, see Rule 1.0(f).
[10] Where a lawyer has joined a private firm
after having represented the government, imputation is governed by Rule 1.11
(b) and (c), not this Rule. Under Rule 1.11(d), where a lawyer represents the
government after having served clients in private practice, nongovernmental
employment or in another government agency, former-client conflicts are not
imputed to government lawyers associated with the individually disqualified
lawyer.
[11] Where a lawyer is
prohibited from engaging in certain transactions under Rule 1.8, paragraph (j)
of that Rule, and not this Rule, determines whether that prohibition also
applies to other lawyers associated in a firm with the personally prohibited
lawyer.