Under Rule 6.5, in a nonprofit or court-annexed limited legal services program, when is Rule 1.10 inapplicable to the representation?

Under Rule 6.5, in a nonprofit or court-annexed limited legal services program, when is Rule 1.10 inapplicable to the representation?

• A. Always; it never applies in these programs.
• B. Never; it always applies in these programs.
• C. Only if the lawyer knows that another lawyer in the firm is disqualified by Rule 1.7 or 1.9(a) with respect to the matter.
• D. Only if the client consents to waiver.

Answer: (C)

Rule 6.5 creates a limited-scope, nonprofit or court-annexed program environment where the usual firm-wide conflict rules are relaxed to promote access to legal services. The key idea is that these programs are designed to avoid automatic disqualification of all lawyers in a firm for a single matter, so Rule 1.10’s imputation is not applied in the ordinary way. However, there is a specific condition under which Rule 1.10 is not applicable to the representation: if the lawyer in the program actually knows that another lawyer in the same firm is disqualified under Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a) with respect to the matter. In that situation, the normal imputation logic is not triggered by Rule 1.10 for this representation. So the correct understanding is that Rule 1.10 is inapplicable only when the program-affiliated lawyer knows that a member of the firm is disqualified under 1.7 or 1.9(a) for the matter. The other choices don’t reflect this conditional, knowledge-based exception, and client consent does not create a waiver of these conflict rules in this context.

Rule 6.5 creates a limited-scope, nonprofit or court-annexed program environment where the usual firm-wide conflict rules are relaxed to promote access to legal services. The key idea is that these programs are designed to avoid automatic disqualification of all lawyers in a firm for a single matter, so Rule 1.10’s imputation is not applied in the ordinary way.

However, there is a specific condition under which Rule 1.10 is not applicable to the representation: if the lawyer in the program actually knows that another lawyer in the same firm is disqualified under Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a) with respect to the matter. In that situation, the normal imputation logic is not triggered by Rule 1.10 for this representation.

So the correct understanding is that Rule 1.10 is inapplicable only when the program-affiliated lawyer knows that a member of the firm is disqualified under 1.7 or 1.9(a) for the matter. The other choices don’t reflect this conditional, knowledge-based exception, and client consent does not create a waiver of these conflict rules in this context.