When may a New York law firm use screening and notice under Rule 1.10(c) to avoid imputing a lateral lawyer's former-client conflict, and what must the firm do?

Plain-English summary

New York amended Rule 1.10 effective January 1, 2025, to permit screening and notice to prevent imputation of certain former-client conflicts brought by lawyers moving between private firms. Opinion 2026-1 explains how the new safe harbor operates. Under Rule 1.10(c)(2), the new firm must act promptly and reasonably to notify appropriate lawyers and nonlawyer personnel of the lateral's disqualification, effectively screen the lateral from the conflicting matter, ensure the lateral receives no part of the fee from that matter, and give the lateral's former client written notice of the screen.

The safe harbor has a specific limit. It is unavailable when the matter is litigation, arbitration, or another adjudicative proceeding and the lateral, at the prior firm, either substantially participated in managing and directing that matter or had substantial decision-making responsibility for it on a continuous, day-to-day basis. The opinion says the adjudicative matter must be the proceeding on which the lateral actually worked before moving. It describes the participation inquiry as highly fact dependent, contrasting a senior partner leading a matter with a junior associate who performed only document review.

The notice should identify the lateral, generally describe the prior work that created the conflict, describe the new firm's conflicting matter, describe the screen, and state that the lateral will receive no part of the fee. The opinion includes a model notice. It says notice ordinarily should be prompt if sent within the first couple of weeks after the lateral joins the firm or after the firm discovers a later-arising conflict. That interval does not permit delay in establishing the screen: if the conflicting matter is already pending, the screen should be in place before the lateral joins; if the conflict arises later, the rule's requirements should be satisfied as soon as practicable.

Rule 1.6 may postpone notice when notice would reveal protected confidential information. The opinion concludes that notice may remain deferred while the information stays confidential, but the firm may lose the benefit of the screen if its nondisclosure is later challenged. It therefore says the firm should regularly reconsider whether the information remains confidential. The opinion also addresses Rule 4.2 when the former client remains represented in the matter, describing notice to the former firm as the better approach in the absence of other guidance and preserving uncertainty about whether Rule 4.2 applies to these notifications.

The hiring firm's duty to discuss the lateral conflict with its own current client turns on materiality under Rule 1.4. A material risk of a disqualification motion may require disclosure before the lateral joins, while a transactional matter presenting no such risk does not create the same obligation. A lawyer receiving a notice has no automatic duty to forward it to a former client or to acknowledge receipt. If the receiving lawyer still represents the client in a related matter, disclosure depends on whether the notice is material or reasonably necessary for the client's decisions in that representation.

In practice

Under this opinion, reliance on Rule 1.10(c) requires a covered former-client conflict, a timely and effective screen, internal notice of the lateral's disqualification, exclusion of the lateral from the matter's fee, and written notice containing enough information for the former client to assess compliance. The opinion separates the timing of the screen from the timing of external notice: the screen must be established promptly, while notice generally may follow within a couple of weeks and may be postponed when Rule 1.6 protects the information it would disclose.

The opinion treats the adjudicative carveout, confidentiality, communications with represented former clients, and material disclosures to current clients as separate inquiries. It also concludes that the former firm receiving a screening notice has no universal duty to notify the former client or respond to the sending firm.

Common questions

Q: Which lateral conflicts cannot be cured through the Rule 1.10(c) screening safe harbor?

A: The safe harbor is unavailable when the conflict concerns litigation, arbitration, or another adjudicative proceeding and the lateral substantially participated in managing and directing that proceeding or had substantial decision-making responsibility for it on a continuous, day-to-day basis. Rule 1.10(d) consent is then the identified option for avoiding imputation.

Q: What must the screening notice tell the lateral's former client?

A: The opinion says the notice should identify the lateral, generally describe the prior work creating the conflict, describe the new firm's conflicting matter and screening measures, and state that the lateral will receive no part of the matter's fee. The opinion's Appendix A supplies a model notice with those elements.

Q: When is notice prompt, and may the firm wait to establish the screen?

A: The opinion says notice ordinarily should be considered prompt if sent within the first couple of weeks after the lateral joins or after the firm learns of a later-arising conflict. The screen cannot wait for that interval: it should be implemented before the lateral joins if the matter is already pending, or as soon as practicable if the conflict arises later.

Q: What if the notice would reveal confidential information about the new matter?

A: Rule 1.10 permits postponement while Rule 1.6 protects the information. The opinion concludes that the duty to notify may remain deferred if the information stays confidential, while warning that a later challenge could place the benefit of the screen at risk and stating that the firm should reassess confidentiality regularly.

Q: Should the new firm send notice directly to a represented former client?

A: The opinion says that, in the absence of other guidance, the better approach may be to follow Rule 4.2 strictly and send notice only to the former firm when that firm still represents the former client in the matter. It leaves open whether Rule 4.2 applies to a screening notification.

Q: Does a lawyer who receives a screening notice have to forward it or acknowledge it?

A: Not automatically. The opinion finds no affirmative duty to contact a former client and no duty to acknowledge receipt. If the lawyer still represents the client in a related matter, Rule 1.4 may require disclosure when the notice is material or reasonably necessary for the client's decisions.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies New York Rules 1.9 and 1.10 to a lateral lawyer's former-client conflict and imputation to the new firm. Rule 1.10(c) supplies the screening and notification safe harbor; Rule 1.10(d) addresses consent. Rule 1.0(t) defines screening, Rule 1.6 governs confidentiality, Rule 1.4 governs material communications with current clients, and Rule 4.2 raises the represented-person issue. The opinion also cites Rule 1.2, Rule 3.7(b)(1), and ABA Model Rule 1.10(a)(2)(ii).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• New York Rule 1.0(t) and Comments [8]-[10] (screening)
• New York Rules 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, 3.7(b)(1), and 4.2
• New York Rule 1.10(c)(1)-(3) and Rule 1.10(d) (lateral conflicts, screening, notice, exclusions, and consent)
• ABA Model Rule 1.10(a)(2)(ii) (comparison to other jurisdictions' notification provisions)

Cases:

• Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Piece of Cake Moving & Storage LLC, 2024 WL 3085052, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), cited as potentially instructive on effective screens
• Berkley Custom Insurance Managers v. N.Y. Risk Services Group, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196600, at *16-18 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2020), cited as potentially instructive on effective screens

Other opinions cited:

• NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2023-1 (June 30, 2023): communications with clients before an attorney departure
• NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-3 (July 18, 2024): Rule 1.4 duties to former and current clients

See also

• NYC Bar Op. 2024-6: conflicts from hiring law students and graduates
• NYC Bar Op. 2003-03: conflict-checking systems
• NY State Bar Op. 1186: screening and separate law firms

Source

• Landing page: https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2026-1-using-new-yorks-screening-notification-rule-to-avoid-imputation-of-a-lateral-attorneys-conflicts-to-other-lawyers-in-the-firm/
• Original PDF: https://www.nycbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/20221664-CityBarOpinionLateralScreeningRule1.10-1.pdf