After a firm breaks up, can a former partner take a matter adverse to a client the other partner handled, when the matter is closely related?

Plain-English summary

The committee considered an attorney whose former partner had represented a client in the investigation of an automobile hit-and-run that killed a pedestrian. After the partnership dissolved, an heir of the deceased victim asked the other former partner to represent the decedent's family. Given the similarity of the two representations, the risk of disclosing confidential information, and the appearance of impropriety, the committee concluded that the former partner's representation of the decedent's family was ethically impermissible, even though that attorney might not have been told all the facts of his former partner's representation.

The committee reasoned that the partnership relationship imputes knowledge to all other partners, and that the knowledge, with the responsibility to hold it inviolate, continues after the attorney-client relationship terminates. It cited DR 4-101(B) and EC 4-6.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983, under Virginia's former Code of Professional Responsibility, before the Virginia State Bar's adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct effective January 1, 2000. The committee note records that current Rule 1.9(b) would not disqualify the lawyer from the former firm unless the lawyer had acquired confidential information "material" to the subsequent representation and consent could not be obtained after full consultation; Rule 1.9(b) analyzes a lawyer's actual knowledge rather than imputed knowledge when the lawyer moves to another firm. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: After a firm splits, can one former partner take a matter against the other's old client?

A: Under this 1983 opinion, not where the matters were closely related; the committee found the representation impermissible because partnership imputed the knowledge to all partners.

Q: Did it matter that the lawyer never learned the confidential facts?

A: No. The committee concluded the partnership relationship imputed knowledge to all partners regardless of what this lawyer personally knew.

Q: Would current rules reach the same result?

A: The committee note states that current Rule 1.9(b) analyzes the lawyer's actual knowledge rather than imputed knowledge, and would not disqualify unless the lawyer had acquired material confidential information and consent could not be obtained.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the former Code's DR 4-101(B) on protecting client confidences and EC 4-6, treating a partner's knowledge as imputed to the whole firm and surviving the representation. The committee note maps the question onto current Virginia Rule 1.9(b) on duties to former clients, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.9, which keys disqualification to a lawyer's actual material knowledge after a move between firms.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 4-101(B) (preserving client confidences) (former Code)
• EC 4-6 (former Code; obligations after the relationship ends)
• Virginia Rule 1.9(b) (duties to former clients; actual knowledge) (cited in the committee note)
• ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)

See also

• VA LEO 1459: A Side-Switching Partner and the Screen
• VA LEO 1250: A Former Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney and Firm Disqualification
• VA LEO 1207: Confidentiality Surviving the Death of a Client

Source

• Landing page: https://vsb.org/Site/about/rules-regulations/leo-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/0527.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 527

CONFLICT OF INTEREST/FORMER LAW PARTNERSHIP/ REPRESENTATION OF ADVERSE PARTY.

An attorney's former partner represented a client in the investigation of an automobile hit and run, which resulted in the death of a pedestrian. Thereafter, the partnership dissolved and an attorney in the former partnership was requested by an heir of the deceased victim of the hit and run to represent the decedent's family. Given the similarity of the two representations, the risk of disclosure of confidential information and the appearance of impropriety, the committee concluded that representation of the decedent's family by the former law partner is ethically impermissible, even though the attorney may not have been apprised of all the facts concerning his former partner's representation. The partnership relationship imputes knowledge to all other partners. The knowledge, and the attendant responsibility to hold it inviolate, continues after the attorney-client relationship terminates. [ DR:4-101(B), EC:4-6]

Committee Opinion
September 13, 1983

Legal Ethics Committee Notes. – Rule 1.9(b) would not disqualify the lawyer with the former firm unless the lawyer had acquired confidential information that was “material” to the subsequent representation and, after full consultation, consent could not be obtained from the client of the former firm and the current client. Rule 1.9(b) analyzes a lawyer’s actual knowledge rather than imputed knowledge when the lawyer moves to another firm.