Under Rule 1.10, when may a firm represent a client adverse to a former associate without violating conflicts of interest?

Under Rule 1.10, when may a firm represent a client adverse to a former associate without violating conflicts of interest?

• A. If the matter is adequately screened and appropriate procedures are followed, including written notice and compliance.
• B. If the former associate consents personally.
• C. If the matter is unrelated and the client is unaware of the former associate.
• D. If the entire firm ignores the conflict.

Answer: (B)

The main concept is that a firm can take on representation adverse to a former client of a lawyer who joined the firm only if proper safeguards are in place to prevent imputed conflicts. Rule 1.10 allows this when the former disqualified lawyer is timely screened from participation in the new matter, does not receive any part of the fee for that matter, and the firm provides written notice to the former client so they may take action if needed. The screening must be effectively maintained, and information about the former client’s matter must not be shared with the team handling the new matter. Consent from the former associate isn’t the controlling factor; the protection comes from the firm’s screening and the procedures implemented, not from the individual’s personal approval. This is why simply relying on the former associate’s consent would not, by itself, justify the representation. Also, the other options aren’t appropriate: proceeding without notice or ignoring the conflict would violate the rules, and awareness or consent of the former client is not the required mechanism to lift the disqualification.

The main concept is that a firm can take on representation adverse to a former client of a lawyer who joined the firm only if proper safeguards are in place to prevent imputed conflicts. Rule 1.10 allows this when the former disqualified lawyer is timely screened from participation in the new matter, does not receive any part of the fee for that matter, and the firm provides written notice to the former client so they may take action if needed. The screening must be effectively maintained, and information about the former client’s matter must not be shared with the team handling the new matter.

Consent from the former associate isn’t the controlling factor; the protection comes from the firm’s screening and the procedures implemented, not from the individual’s personal approval. This is why simply relying on the former associate’s consent would not, by itself, justify the representation. Also, the other options aren’t appropriate: proceeding without notice or ignoring the conflict would violate the rules, and awareness or consent of the former client is not the required mechanism to lift the disqualification.