Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

May a lawyer who left a firm represent the wife in a support case against the firm’s former client?

Short answer The committee said the lawyer would avoid imputed disqualification if she neither acquired material information nor had access to confidential information about the husband while at the former firm, or if such information had become generally known. Access or possession of material confidential information would disqualify her.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
October 9, 1995
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
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 as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

While the lawyer belonged to a firm, the firm represented the husband in patent and farmland matters. After leaving, she was asked to represent his wife in a child-support increase. The committee assumed possible relation between the farmland and support matters.

The opinion made access to the former firm client’s confidential information decisive. It said no imputed disqualification would follow if the lawyer lacked both material information and access, but general access to or acquisition of material information concerning the husband would bar the wife’s representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Is lack of personal work on the husband’s files enough?

A: Not necessarily. The committee examined access to confidential information, including general access to the former firm’s files.

Q: What if the information became generally known?

A: The opinion said the lawyer could represent the wife even after access if the information fell within the Rule 1.6(h) exception for generally known information.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses North Dakota Rules 1.9(a), 1.9(b), 1.9(c), 1.10(c), 1.6(h) in addressing the stated request.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 1.9(a).
  • North Dakota Rule 1.9(b).
  • North Dakota Rule 1.9(c).
  • North Dakota Rule 1.10(c).
  • North Dakota Rule 1.6(h).

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1995. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace