May a law firm hire a paralegal who previously worked for a firm it is currently opposing in litigation?

Plain-English summary

A law firm representing plaintiffs in toxic-tort litigation asked whether it could ethically employ paralegals who had previously worked as paralegals for adversarial firms. The inquirer suggested that Opinion 525, 113 N.J.L.J. 365 (1984), which addressed the employment of lawyers experienced in such matters, should be read to permit the proposed employment.

The Committee rejected that reading. It quoted Opinion 525's holding that a lawyer and the firm he joins will be disqualified from handling a case in which the prior firm was or is engaged, because even if no confidences were obtained and there is no actual conflict, the contrary presumption is irrebuttable and the appearance of impropriety is pervasive.

Turning to nonlawyers, the Committee pointed to RPC 5.3, which governs a lawyer's responsibility for nonlawyer assistants, as confirming that Opinion 525's rule applies to the employment of such assistants. It concluded that hiring a paralegal formerly employed by a firm with which the prospective employer is presently involved in adversarial matters would clearly be improper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and New Jersey law on screening and imputed disqualification has developed since. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 firm hire a paralegal who had worked for an opposing firm?

A: Not where the firms are presently involved in adversarial matters. The opinion concluded such hiring would clearly be improper.

Q: Did Opinion 525, about hiring lawyers, allow hiring paralegals from adversary firms?

A: No. The opinion held Opinion 525 did not support that reading; its disqualification rule applies to nonlawyer assistants too.

Q: What rule extended the lawyer-switching rule to paralegals?

A: Per the opinion, RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants) confirmed that Opinion 525 applied to the employment of such assistants.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies RPC 5.3 (a lawyer's responsibility for the conduct of nonlawyer assistants) and the imputed-disqualification principle of RPC 1.10, building on Opinion 525's treatment of lawyers who move between adversary firms. Under Opinion 525, the presumption that a side-switching lawyer carries confidences is irrebuttable, and the Committee read RPC 5.3 to extend the same logic to paralegals.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 5.3 / NJ RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants)
• MR 1.10 / NJ RPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 525 (a side-switching lawyer and the firm he joins are disqualified; the presumption of shared confidences is irrebuttable)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 665: Imputed Disqualification - Paralegal Who Worked for an Adversary
• NJ ACPE Op. 667: Imputed Disqualification - Employment of a Partner From an Adverse Firm
• NJ ACPE Op. 564: Employment of Former Insurance-Defense Counsel by a Plaintiff Firm
• NJ ACPE Op. 633: Hiring an Associate Who Clerked on Asbestos and Tobacco Litigation

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp546-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

114 N.J.L.J. 496, November 8, 1984

OPINION 546

Conflict of Interest - Employment of Paralegals who Previously Worked For Adversarial Firms.

A law firm representing Plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation inquires whether it may ethically employ paralegals "... who have previously worked as paralegals for adversarial firms." (Emphasis supplied). The inquirer suggests that Opinion 525, 113 N.J.L.J. 365 (1984), which dealt with the employment of lawyers who had experience in such matters, ought to be read as permitting the proposed employment. Not so. In Opinion 525 we said, inter alia, that:

Clearly a lawyer and the firm he joins will be disqualified from handling a case in which the prior firm was or is engaged. The reason is obvious: Even if no confidences were obtained or there is no actual conflict, the presumption otherwise is irrebuttable. Further, the appearance of impropriety is pervasive. Id. at 383.

Reference to RPC 5.3 serves to confirm the applicability of Opinion 525 to the employment of "Nonlawyer assistants." Hiring a paralegal formerly employed by a firm with which the prospective employer presently is involved in adversarial matters would clearly be improper.