Must a lawyer keep client confidences he learned while working as a paralegal before admission, and is his new firm disqualified?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer, while employed as a paralegal before admission, became privy to confidential information about a client of the firm. Now associated with a different firm, he was asked to participate in a matter involving that former employer's client where the information could be relevant. The committee was asked whether he or any of his present associates could undertake the representation, and answered no.

The committee noted that the Code is addressed to lawyers, not paralegals, and that its only references to paralegals acquiring confidential information impose on the lawyer-employer a duty to take care that confidentiality is not compromised (DR 4-101(D); EC 4-3). But it reasoned that the duty reaches the former paralegal once he becomes a lawyer. To the extent the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege under CPLR 4503, the law would require him to hold it inviolate regardless of his later admission, and revealing it would violate the Code (EC 1-5, DR 1-101(A)(4), DR 7-102(A)(8)). Even if the information were not privileged but merely a "secret" within DR 4-101(A), the committee concluded it still could not be revealed: the ethical restraints on his former lawyer-employer are identical to those now imposed on him as a lawyer, and just as the employer could not cause an employee to divulge Canon 4 information, the former paralegal could not himself reveal information he acquired in that employment.

Because the information was relevant, the committee held the former paralegal could not undertake the proposed representation. His Canon 4 duty to preserve the confidences and secrets of his former employer's client, coupled with the Canon 7 and Canon 9 obligations to pursue his present client's interests zealously while avoiding any appearance of impropriety, disqualified him (DR 4-101(B), DR 5-101(A), DR 7-101(A)). And because he was disqualified, his associates in private practice were likewise disqualified under DR 5-105(D). The question was answered in the negative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (confidentiality is now governed by Rule 1.6, duties to former clients by Rule 1.9, and imputation of conflicts by Rule 1.10; the screening of nonlawyer staff is addressed in the comments to Rule 1.10). 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: Did the lawyer owe a confidentiality duty for information he learned only as a paralegal?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee held that once admitted he is bound to preserve those confidences and secrets, whether they are privileged under CPLR 4503 or merely "secrets" under DR 4-101(A).

Q: Could he take a matter where that information was relevant?

A: No. The committee held his Canon 4 duty to the former employer's client, combined with his Canon 7 and Canon 9 duties to his present client, disqualified him from the representation.

Q: Were his new associates disqualified too?

A: Yes. Because he was personally disqualified, DR 5-105(D) imputed the disqualification to his associates in private practice.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 4 (DR 4-101 and its Ethical Considerations on preserving client confidences and secrets, including DR 4-101(D) on supervising employees) together with DR 5-105(D) (imputed disqualification) and Canons 7 and 9, read alongside CPLR 4503's privilege. The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients), and Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts), which also addresses screening of nonlawyer personnel.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• MR 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• MR 1.10 (imputation of conflicts)
• NY Canon 4; EC 4-5, EC 4-6; DR 4-101(B), DR 4-101(D), DR 5-105(D)

Statutes:

• N.Y. CPLR 4503 (attorney-client privilege)

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 473 (1977): supervising employees to preserve confidences
• N.Y. State 422 (1975) and 386 (1975): a lawyer may not reveal information acquired while employed by another lawyer
• N.Y. State 502 (1979): former government counsel and imputed disqualification

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 502: Former assistant DA representing defendants
• NY State Bar Op. 516: Insurance lawyer preparing an estate plan

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-503/