DCBAR June 2001

When a lawyer leaves private practice to join the government, what duties does the lawyer still owe to former private clients?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that a lawyer who leaves private practice for government service continues to owe former clients confidentiality under Rule 1.6 (not to reveal or use their confidences and secrets) and, under Rule 1.9, may not handle a matter the same as or substantially related to former-client work without consent; that personal disqualification is not imputed to other lawyers in the government agency, though screening should be considered.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2001. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

Opinion 308 (issued June 2001) addressed the "reverse revolving door": the duties a lawyer owes when leaving private practice for government service. Rule 1.11 expressly governs lawyers moving from government to private practice, but no parallel rule covers the reverse move, so the Committee applied the D.C. Rules' general provisions.

On confidentiality, the opinion concluded the duties under Rule 1.6 survive the end of the representation and bind the new government lawyer. The lawyer may not reveal a former client's confidences or secrets, and may not use them to the former client's disadvantage even in an unrelated matter; the example given was a lawyer who learned a manufacturer's design plans in private product-liability work and could not use them to shape an adverse environmental regulation in government, absent consent or a Rule 1.6 exception.

On conflicts, the opinion concluded Rule 1.9 barred the government lawyer from handling a matter that was the same as or substantially related to former-client work, adverse to that client, without consent. Unlike private practice, where Rule 1.10 imputes a former-client disqualification to the whole firm, the imputation rule does not apply to a government agency, because the Rules' definition of "firm" excludes government entities, so other lawyers in the agency were not disqualified; the opinion nonetheless recommended that the agency consider voluntary screening of the disqualified lawyer. The opinion also noted the lawyer's duties to the new government client (competence, diligence, avoiding conflicts) and that statutes and regulations beyond the Rules also govern government lawyers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does a lawyer joining the government still owe duties to former private clients?

A: The opinion concluded yes. The duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6 and the former-client conflict bar of Rule 1.9 continue to apply after the lawyer leaves private practice.

Q: Could the new government lawyer use a former client's confidential information for the government's benefit?

A: The opinion concluded no. Rule 1.6 barred the lawyer from using a former client's confidences or secrets to that client's disadvantage, even in a matter unrelated to the former representation, absent consent or an exception.

Q: Were other lawyers in the government agency disqualified along with the lawyer?

A: The opinion concluded no. Because the Rules' definition of "firm" excludes government entities, a former-client disqualification was not imputed to other agency lawyers, though the opinion recommended considering voluntary screening.

Q: Did Rule 1.11 apply to a lawyer moving from private practice into government?

A: The opinion concluded Rule 1.11 governs only the move from government to private practice; the reverse move was governed by the general rules, principally Rules 1.6 and 1.9.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 1.6 (confidentiality; the duties not to reveal and not to use a client's confidences and secrets, which survive the representation) and Rule 1.9 (former-client conflicts), together with Rule 1.10 (imputation, whose definition of "firm" excludes government entities) and Rule 1.7 (the new client's representation). It distinguished Rule 1.11, which addresses the government-to-private direction, and noted that other statutes and regulations (such as 18 U.S.C. chapter 11 and 5 C.F.R. part 2635) also govern government lawyers.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

D.C. RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality; duties survive the representation)
D.C. RPC 1.9 / Model Rule 1.9 (former-client conflicts)
D.C. RPC 1.10 / Model Rule 1.10 (imputation; "firm" excludes government entities)
D.C. RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (duties to the new client)

Statutes:

18 U.S.C. chapter 11 (criminal conflict-of-interest laws for federal employees)
5 C.F.R. part 2635 (Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch employees)

Cases:

Brown v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 486 A.2d 37 (D.C. 1984) (en banc) (the substantial-relationship test)

Other opinions cited:

D.C. Ethics Opinions 210, 268, 279, 283, 294

Source

Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-308

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2001 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.