‼️
Prof Responsibility • Loyalty
PR#044
Legal Definition
The general rule of imputed conflicts does not apply to (1) conflicts caused by former and current government lawyers, (2) conflicts caused by a purely personal interest of the conflicted lawyer that will not inhibit other lawyers in the firm from representing the client competently and diligently; (3) conflicts caused by the conflicted lawyer's close family relationship with another lawyer who is representing a different client in the matter; or (4) conflicts caused by the conflicted lawyer's sexual relationship with the client.
Plain English Explanation
In law firms, there's usually a "one for all, all for one" approach when it comes to conflicts of interest. If one lawyer in the firm has a conflict, it's typically assumed that the whole firm is conflicted out. This is called "imputed conflict." It's based on the idea that lawyers in a firm share information and that clients should be able to trust that their confidential information won't be used against them.
However, there are some situations where this blanket approach doesn't make sense, and the rules recognize this. These exceptions are like saying, "In these specific cases, we trust that the conflict can be contained to just one lawyer."
First, there's an exception for government lawyers. This helps ensure that lawyers can move between public service and private practice without creating massive conflicts for their firms.
Second, if a lawyer has a purely personal conflict that won't affect how other lawyers in the firm handle the case, it doesn't spread to the whole firm. For example, if a lawyer personally dislikes a client but this won't impact the firm's representation, the rest of the firm can still take the case.
Third, if a lawyer's conflict comes from having a close family member representing the other side, this conflict isn't automatically spread to the whole firm. The rule recognizes that in this case, the risk is more about the individual lawyer's personal relationship than about shared firm information.
Lastly, if a lawyer has a sexual relationship with a client, this very personal conflict doesn't get imputed to the rest of the firm.
However, there are some situations where this blanket approach doesn't make sense, and the rules recognize this. These exceptions are like saying, "In these specific cases, we trust that the conflict can be contained to just one lawyer."
First, there's an exception for government lawyers. This helps ensure that lawyers can move between public service and private practice without creating massive conflicts for their firms.
Second, if a lawyer has a purely personal conflict that won't affect how other lawyers in the firm handle the case, it doesn't spread to the whole firm. For example, if a lawyer personally dislikes a client but this won't impact the firm's representation, the rest of the firm can still take the case.
Third, if a lawyer's conflict comes from having a close family member representing the other side, this conflict isn't automatically spread to the whole firm. The rule recognizes that in this case, the risk is more about the individual lawyer's personal relationship than about shared firm information.
Lastly, if a lawyer has a sexual relationship with a client, this very personal conflict doesn't get imputed to the rest of the firm.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob, a former government prosecutor, joins a private law firm. The firm is defending a company in a case Bob had previously worked on while in government. Result: While Bob is personally conflicted out of the case, this conflict is not imputed to the rest of the firm under the government lawyer exception. The firm can continue to represent the company, provided they implement proper screening measures for Bob.
Hypo 2: Amy, a lawyer at XYZ Law Firm, has a strong personal dislike for a potential client due to a past social interaction. She informs her colleagues of this but confirms it won't affect her professional judgment. Result: Amy's personal conflict does not get imputed to the rest of the firm. If Amy can set aside her personal feelings and represent the client competently, or if she doesn't work on the case at all, the firm can take on the client.
Hypo 3: Bob, a partner at ABC Law Firm, discovers that his brother, a lawyer at another firm, is representing the opposing party in a major case. Result: While Bob has a conflict due to his close family relationship with opposing counsel, this conflict is not imputed to the rest of ABC Law Firm. The firm can continue to handle the case, but Bob should be screened from any involvement.
Hypo 4: Amy, an associate at LMN Law Firm, is in a sexual relationship with a client she's representing in a corporate matter. Result: While Amy's sexual relationship with the client creates a personal conflict for her, this conflict is not imputed to the rest of LMN Law Firm. Other lawyers in the firm can continue to work on the client's matters, but Amy should be removed from the case.
Hypo 2: Amy, a lawyer at XYZ Law Firm, has a strong personal dislike for a potential client due to a past social interaction. She informs her colleagues of this but confirms it won't affect her professional judgment. Result: Amy's personal conflict does not get imputed to the rest of the firm. If Amy can set aside her personal feelings and represent the client competently, or if she doesn't work on the case at all, the firm can take on the client.
Hypo 3: Bob, a partner at ABC Law Firm, discovers that his brother, a lawyer at another firm, is representing the opposing party in a major case. Result: While Bob has a conflict due to his close family relationship with opposing counsel, this conflict is not imputed to the rest of ABC Law Firm. The firm can continue to handle the case, but Bob should be screened from any involvement.
Hypo 4: Amy, an associate at LMN Law Firm, is in a sexual relationship with a client she's representing in a corporate matter. Result: While Amy's sexual relationship with the client creates a personal conflict for her, this conflict is not imputed to the rest of LMN Law Firm. Other lawyers in the firm can continue to work on the client's matters, but Amy should be removed from the case.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
Are lawyers allowed to have sex with their clients?
Can an attorney continue to represent a client if a conflict exists?
Does representing clients with inconsistent positions violate the lawyer's Duty of Loyalty?
How can a lawyer limit their malpractice liability with a client?
How can screening avoid imputed conflicts?
How do the California rules differ from the ABA when it comes to a lawyer accepting compensation from a party other than their client?
In assessing a conflict of interest, what is a concurrent conflict?
In assessing the Duty of Loyalty, what's the difference between an actual conflict and a potential conflict?
In California, are lawyer's allowed to have sex with their clients?
In California, how can a lawyer limit their malpractice liability with a client?
In California, how must a lawyer advise their client to seek independent counsel when dealing with potential financial conflicts?
In California, may a lawyer represent an insurance company and its policyholder as joint clients?
In California, what are the restrictions related to lawyers acquiring the media rights of their clients?
In California, what are the restrictions related to lawyers receiving gifts from their clients?
In California, when may a lawyer loan money to a client?
What are some common issues that occur when a lawyer represents multiple clients in the same matter?
What are the most common types of conflicts of interest that involve a lawyer's own interest?
What are the restrictions related to lawyers acquiring the media rights of their clients?
What are the restrictions related to lawyers receiving gifts from their clients?
What is an imputed conflict and how can it be resolved?
What is required in order for a lawyer to accept compensation from a party other than their client?
What is required in order for a lawyer to avoid a financial conflict with a client?
What is the Duty of Loyalty?
When may a lawyer appear as a witness in a matter where they represent a party?
When may a lawyer loan money to a client?
When may there be a conflict of interest with a former client?
