Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, I am a litigation partner in a firm. My daughter and niece graduated from law school together, and they have now gone to work for separate local litigation boutiques. A large multi-party case was recently filed against a number of defendants, including one of my firm’s clients. Most local law firms have become involved. In a quirk of coincidence, my daughter, my niece and I have each entered appearances for defendants, which have cross-claimed against each other. Do I have a conflict appearing as counsel in the action in which my daughter and niece are on opposing legal teams if they are not the lead? Does this situation result in Rule 1.10(a) imputed disqualification of any of the firms?
Continue Reading April 18 Issue – Conflicts from Family RelationshipsThe twice-monthly “Dear Ethics Lawyer” column is part of a training regimen of the Legal Ethics Project, authored by Mark Hinderks, former managing partner and counsel to an AmLaw 200 firm. Read More
April 2023
April 3 Issue – Choice of Law in Multi-State Ethics Issues
By Mark Hinderks on
Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, I am responsible for growth at a law firm based in States A and B. I have recruited a group of lawyers from another firm who would join our State A office, and we are currently working through conflict issues. Two of these issues relate to which state’s rules apply, specifically because State A has adopted the current version of Model Rule 1.10(a)(2) which allows screening (with certain notices and certifications) to remove imputation of an incoming lateral lawyer’s conflicts arising from association with a prior firm, while State B has a version of Rule 1.10 that does not permit screening to do so, without express consent of the affected clients.
The first issue in this context is a litigation matter in State A for a State B client of our firm currently being handled by Lawyer A of our State A office adverse to a State B client of a lawyer from the firm the laterals would come from. The second issue relates to a transactional matter being handled by Lawyer B (licensed in both States A and B) of our firm’s office in State B, for a client in State B, adverse to a State A client of the laterals’ firm. In both circumstances, the other firm’s client would be Rule 1.9(b) former clients of one or more of those laterals who acquired confidential information related to the matters. See Rule 1.9(b)(2). Therefore, given the versions of Rule 1.10 in effect in the two states, screening without client consent would work if State A Rules apply, but would not work if State B’s Rules apply. This makes my head hurt – could you please help?