In the not so distant past, a lawyer could plan to spend her entire career at one firm, beginning as an associate, moving into partnership and retiring without changing letterhead. Nowadays, it is not unusual to change firms at least once or twice during one’s career. This new mobility has made the issue of imputed conflicts of interest both more important and more controversial. This controversy became manifest last August when the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates took an amendment to Model Rule 1.10, dealing with imputed conflicts, under consideration. The amendment would permit screening of attorneys, so that any conflicts they bring to a new firm are not imputed to their new colleagues. The amended model rule would be consistent with the rule in Pennsylvania, but not with the rule in New Jersey.
The proposed amendment applies to this uncomfortable situation: An attorney has represented a client in a particular matter at one firm and moves to a second firm. The attorneys at the second firm wish to represent the client’s adversary in the same or in a similar matter. Under the proposed amendment, the second firm may represent the adversary, provided that an appropriate screening mechanism is established and the affected client is promptly provided notice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
