Could a firm defend a lease dispute after hiring a lawyer from the firm that drafted the lease for the plaintiff?

Plain-English summary

One firm had drafted a commercial lease for the lessor. The lessor later sued the lessee over an alleged default. A second firm represented the lessee and was about to hire a lawyer from the first firm. That lawyer had not worked on the lease or contacted the lessor while at the first firm.

The committee accepted those facts and found that the moving lawyer had no former-client confidences to disclose. It said the new firm could continue the defense if it kept the moving lawyer from participating in the litigation. It suggested safeguards like those used by the Attorney General's office in State v. Minor, including instructions not to discuss the case.

The committee gave a limiting condition: if the lawyer had been involved with or had information about the lessor while at the first firm, even without direct knowledge of the lease, the new firm's representation of the lessee would be improper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history says the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code and applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999; the court later made comprehensive amendments in 2009. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did mere membership in the former firm disqualify the new firm?

A: Not on the stated facts. The moving lawyer had no contact with or information about the former client and would not participate in the defense.

Q: What if the moving lawyer had information about the lessor?

A: The committee said a conflict would exist and the new firm could not represent the lessee once the lawyer joined it.

Background and rules framework

The opinion did not name a numbered Vermont disciplinary rule. It cited ABA Informal Opinion 885 on former-client adversity and State v. Minor for a case-separation safeguard.

Citations and references

Other opinion cited:

• ABA Informal Opinion 885 (1965).

Case cited:

• State v. Minor, 128 Vt. 55, 258 A.2d 815 (1969), cited for safeguards used after a government lawyer changed offices.

See also

• Vermont Ethics Op. 80-08: Appeal against a former client
• Vermont Ethics Op. 84-05: Initial inquiry and later adverse defense

Source

• Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
• Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 81-04
• Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”