May a former Connecticut municipal lawyer represent a personal-injury client against the municipality in a case the lawyer did not know about or work on?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2022. Ask about yours and see what the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The requesting lawyer had worked for a municipality for about five months. A motor-vehicle personal-injury case was pending during that employment, but the lawyer did not know about it, work on it, or handle another matter involving the same municipal employee. The lawyer had performed background research on a different motor-vehicle personal-injury matter.
Rule 1.11, rather than Rule 1.9's general former-client rule, governs the former government employee. Rule 1.11(a)(2) bars a representation connected with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public employee unless the agency gives informed written consent.
The current case was not the same matter as the lawyer's prior municipal work. It involved different specific parties, and research on a similar subject did not establish personal and substantial participation in the current matter. The Committee relied on Rule 1.11's deliberate limitation to particular matters rather than every substantive issue on which a government lawyer worked.
Rule 1.11(a)(1) also incorporates Rule 1.9(c). The lawyer may not use or reveal information learned from the former client as the rule prohibits. The Committee therefore conditioned its conclusion on the lawyer having no confidential information that could be used to the municipality's disadvantage in the current case.
In practice
Under this opinion, former government employment does not create a subject-matter-wide bar. Rule 1.11(a)(2) focuses on the same particular matter and whether the lawyer participated in it personally and substantially.
Separate from that test, Rule 1.9(c)'s former-client information restrictions continue to apply. The opinion permits the representation only if no protected information from the municipal employment would be used against the municipality or employee.
Common questions
Q: Does working for a municipality bar a lawyer from later suing it?
A: Not automatically. The opinion applies Rule 1.11 to the particular matter and asks whether the lawyer participated personally and substantially in it as a public employee.
Q: Was the lawyer disqualified because the case was pending during municipal employment?
A: No. The lawyer did not know about or work on the case and did not handle any other matter involving the employee.
Q: Did research on another motor-vehicle case make the matters the same?
A: No. The Committee concluded that similarity in subject matter was not enough because the other work involved different specific parties.
Q: What does Rule 1.9(c) add to the analysis?
A: The former government lawyer may not use information from the prior representation to the former client's disadvantage or reveal it except as the Rules permit.
Q: Can a government agency consent to work on the same matter?
A: Rule 1.11(a)(2), as quoted in the opinion, permits the representation when the appropriate government agency gives informed consent confirmed in writing.
Background and rules framework
Rule 1.11 balances protection of confidential government information against the government's need to attract qualified lawyers. The commentary limits disqualification to particular matters involving specific parties in which the former government lawyer participated personally and substantially.
The opinion treats confidentiality as an independent condition through Rule 1.11(a)(1)'s incorporation of Rule 1.9(c). It cites federal authority distinguishing similar legal research from possession of confidential factual information applicable to the new matter.
Citations and references
Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rules 1.9(c), 1.11(a)(1), and 1.11(a)(2)
Cases:
- Green v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 8214 (PKC), 2011 WL 2419864 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2011), similar research and confidential factual information
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 1148: Former government lawyer opposing former employer
- VSB LEO 1299: Former government lawyer and a revised rule
Source
- Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
- Original PDF: Informal Opinion 22-01
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2022. Ezel checks the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace