‼️
Prof Responsibility • Loyalty
PR#045
Legal Definition
Under Rule 1.10(a)(2), when a lawyer joins a new law firm, their Rule 1.9 conflicts will not be imputed to the firm if: (1) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from participation in the matter; (2) they are apportioned no part of the fee; (3) written notice is promptly given to any affected former client; and (4) certifications of compliance with the screening procedures are provided at reasonable intervals upon the former client's request.
Plain English Explanation
When lawyers move between firms, they bring their knowledge and experience - but they can also bring conflicts of interest, baggage, and drama from their previous work. Normally, these conflicts would spread to the entire new firm, potentially forcing the firm to turn away clients. However, the rules provide a way for firms to hire talented lawyers without automatically inheriting all their conflicts. This process is called "screening."
Think of screening like a virtual wall within the law firm, like quarantine. It's designed to block the flow of information between the conflicted lawyer and the rest of the firm working on the sensitive case. But for this wall to be effective and ethical, several important steps must be taken.
First, the screening must happen quickly. The conflicted lawyer needs to be cut off from the case as soon as the potential conflict is identified. This means no access to files, no discussions about the case, and no involvement whatsoever.
Second, money matters. The screened lawyer can't profit from the case they're conflicted out of. This removes any financial incentive that might tempt them to breach the screening wall.
Third, transparency is key. The firm must promptly tell the affected former client about the situation in writing. This gives the former client a chance to raise any concerns they might have.
Lastly, the firm needs to be ready to prove they're following the rules. If the former client asks, the firm must provide regular updates confirming that the screening is working as it should.
Think of screening like a virtual wall within the law firm, like quarantine. It's designed to block the flow of information between the conflicted lawyer and the rest of the firm working on the sensitive case. But for this wall to be effective and ethical, several important steps must be taken.
First, the screening must happen quickly. The conflicted lawyer needs to be cut off from the case as soon as the potential conflict is identified. This means no access to files, no discussions about the case, and no involvement whatsoever.
Second, money matters. The screened lawyer can't profit from the case they're conflicted out of. This removes any financial incentive that might tempt them to breach the screening wall.
Third, transparency is key. The firm must promptly tell the affected former client about the situation in writing. This gives the former client a chance to raise any concerns they might have.
Lastly, the firm needs to be ready to prove they're following the rules. If the former client asks, the firm must provide regular updates confirming that the screening is working as it should.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob, a patent lawyer, leaves his old firm and joins XYZ Law. XYZ is currently representing a client in a patent dispute against one of Bob's former clients. XYZ immediately implements a screen, preventing Bob from accessing any files or participating in any discussions about the case. They inform the former client in writing and don't allocate any of the case's fees to Bob. Result: If XYZ follows through with all screening procedures and provides certifications upon request, this likely complies with Rule 1.10(a)(2), allowing the firm to continue representing their client despite Bob's conflict.
Hypo 2: Amy joins LMN Law Firm, bringing a conflict from her previous employment. LMN implements a screen two weeks after Amy starts, once they realize the conflict exists. They notify the former client a week later. Result: This likely violates Rule 1.10(a)(2) because the screen was not "timely" implemented and notice was not "promptly" given. The delay in screening and notification could compromise the effectiveness of the procedures.
Hypo 3: QRS Law Firm hires Bob and properly screens him from a case involving his former client. However, as part of Bob's compensation package, he receives a small percentage of all firm profits, including those from the screened case. Result: This violates Rule 1.10(a)(2) because Bob is being apportioned part of the fee from the matter he's screened from. Even if it's indirect, any financial benefit from the screened case is prohibited.
Hypo 4: Amy joins PQR Law Firm, which properly screens her from a case involving her former client. The former client requests monthly certifications of compliance with the screening procedures. PQR provides these for three months but then stops, claiming it's too burdensome. Result: This likely violates Rule 1.10(a)(2). While "reasonable intervals" for certification are not precisely defined, abruptly stopping the certifications upon client request, especially so soon after implementation, is likely unreasonable.
Hypo 5: Bob joins DEF Law Firm, bringing a conflict. DEF implements a proper screen, gives notice to the former client, and excludes Bob from fees. However, they only describe their screening procedures verbally to the former client, refusing to put anything in writing. Result: This violates Rule 1.10(a)(2) because written notice to the affected former client is required. Verbal communication, no matter how detailed, is not sufficient to meet this requirement.
Hypo 2: Amy joins LMN Law Firm, bringing a conflict from her previous employment. LMN implements a screen two weeks after Amy starts, once they realize the conflict exists. They notify the former client a week later. Result: This likely violates Rule 1.10(a)(2) because the screen was not "timely" implemented and notice was not "promptly" given. The delay in screening and notification could compromise the effectiveness of the procedures.
Hypo 3: QRS Law Firm hires Bob and properly screens him from a case involving his former client. However, as part of Bob's compensation package, he receives a small percentage of all firm profits, including those from the screened case. Result: This violates Rule 1.10(a)(2) because Bob is being apportioned part of the fee from the matter he's screened from. Even if it's indirect, any financial benefit from the screened case is prohibited.
Hypo 4: Amy joins PQR Law Firm, which properly screens her from a case involving her former client. The former client requests monthly certifications of compliance with the screening procedures. PQR provides these for three months but then stops, claiming it's too burdensome. Result: This likely violates Rule 1.10(a)(2). While "reasonable intervals" for certification are not precisely defined, abruptly stopping the certifications upon client request, especially so soon after implementation, is likely unreasonable.
Hypo 5: Bob joins DEF Law Firm, bringing a conflict. DEF implements a proper screen, gives notice to the former client, and excludes Bob from fees. However, they only describe their screening procedures verbally to the former client, refusing to put anything in writing. Result: This violates Rule 1.10(a)(2) because written notice to the affected former client is required. Verbal communication, no matter how detailed, is not sufficient to meet this requirement.
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 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 does the general rule of imputed conflicts NOT apply?
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?
