Can a lawyer serve as a testifying expert against a former client in a matter substantially related to the lawyer's prior representation?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1999. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Plaintiffs' attorneys asked a lawyer to testify as an expert on the standard of care in an industry, including compliance with legal requirements. The matter was assumed to be substantially related to one that had been pending against the defendant years earlier, when the lawyer was the defendant's general counsel; the lawyer asserted she actually held no relevant confidential information. She had already reviewed pleadings and deposition transcripts and shared her impressions on the applicable standard of care with the plaintiffs and their attorneys.
The committee analyzed the question under Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.9 and 5.7. It first observed that if the lawyer's activities had gone beyond those of a pure testifying expert, into strategy advice and the like, they might amount to representation, in which case Rule 1.9(a) would disqualify her absent consent, and her expert testimony would be tainted by that representation. The committee said it lacked enough facts to decide whether her role had crossed that line.
Assuming instead that she acted solely as a testifying expert, the committee still concluded she should be disqualified. Rule 1.9 codified the common-law "substantial relationship" test, under which a court assumes confidences were shared and does not probe their nature. Although Rule 1.9 by its terms addressed a lawyer who "represents" a new client against a former client, the committee found the same principles of loyalty, the same risk of inadvertent use of confidences, and the same reluctance to probe the client's secrets applied to a testifying expert. It also read Rule 5.7, which applied the rules of professional conduct to law-related services not distinct from legal services, to reach expert testimony about a standard of care tied to legal requirements. The committee acknowledged that ABA Formal Opinion 97-407 had reached the opposite conclusion, treating the testifying lawyer like any other expert, but it disagreed, reasoning that presenting testimony favorably to the hiring firm would require testifying against the former client in a substantially related matter, which was incompatible with the duty of loyalty.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1999, before Massachusetts's adoption of the 2015 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: Could a former general counsel testify as an expert against the former client?
A: The committee concluded she ought not, where the matter was substantially related to her prior representation, even if she claimed to hold no relevant confidences, unless the former client consented after consultation.
Q: Did it matter that the lawyer said she had no confidential information?
A: No. Applying the common-law substantial-relationship test codified in Rule 1.9, the committee said a court assumes confidences were disclosed and does not inquire into their nature, so the lawyer's assertion did not cure the conflict.
Q: How did this opinion treat ABA Formal Opinion 97-407?
A: The committee acknowledged the ABA had reached the opposite result, treating a testifying lawyer like any other expert, but it disagreed, finding that approach incompatible with the duty of loyalty owed to a former client in a substantially related matter.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.9 (duties to former clients, including the substantial-relationship test in paragraph (a) and the restriction on using or revealing confidences in paragraph (c)) and Mass. R. Prof. C. 5.7 (responsibilities regarding law-related services). Both corresponded to the Model Rules of the same numbers as they stood at the time. The committee anchored the substantial-relationship analysis in T. C. & Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 1.9 / Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.9(a), (c) (duties to former clients; substantial-relationship test; use of confidences)
- Model Rule 5.7 / Mass. R. Prof. C. 5.7 (responsibilities regarding law-related services)
Cases:
- T. C. & Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 113 F. Supp. 265 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) (the seminal substantial-relationship formulation)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Opinion 97-407 (reaching the contrary conclusion that a testifying lawyer acts like any other expert)
See also
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 03-4: Taking a matter against a former client
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 05-05: Lawyer as witness in a guardianship over a client
- CA Bar Ethics Op. 1993-133: Lawyer as witness
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1999 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.