Could a former Vermont firm associate represent a wife in divorce litigation against a husband represented by the old firm?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A former associate left a firm that represented a husband in divorce litigation and then took on the wife's representation in that same case. The associate had not worked on or known about the husband's matter while at the firm.
The committee found no ethical bar. It distinguished imputation among current firm members from a former lawyer who could show no actual knowledge of the earlier client matter or its confidences. It said the party asserting a conflict bore the burden to show disqualifying knowledge after that denial.
The opinion explained that the former associate's departure and lack of knowledge removed the Canon 9 concern that firm members might share protected information.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1985 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 working at the old firm automatically disqualify the former associate?
A: No. The committee allowed the representation where the lawyer lacked knowledge of or involvement in the husband’s matter.
Q: Who had to show disqualifying knowledge?
A: After the former associate denied such knowledge, the opinion placed that burden on the party claiming a conflict.
Background and rules framework
The committee discussed imputed knowledge, protection of client confidences, and former Code Canon 9 on apparent impropriety. It relied on Laskey Brothers and United States v. Standard Oil Company.
Citations and references
Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:
- Canon 9
Cases:
- Laskey Brothers v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 224 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1955), former firm knowledge; United States v. Standard Oil Company, 136 F. Supp. 345 (S.D.N.Y. 1955), former lawyer with no related knowledge
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 92-12: Former defendant secretary
- Vermont Ethics Op. 88-12: Unrelated former clients
Source
- Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 85-02
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1985. Ezel checks the current Vermont 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