Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a former Vermont Department of Public Service lawyer represent a company before the same regulator without a waiting period?

Short answer Opinion 86-01 allowed immediate representation where the former government work was on discrete, unrelated matters and no protected department information would be used.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1986
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
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

A lawyer had served as special counsel to the Vermont Department of Public Service and later considered representing Vermont Power Exchange before the Public Service Board. The lawyer's prior department work had only occasionally touched discrete matters involving that company.

The committee allowed the new representation without a waiting period. It found no substantial relationship between the lawyer's government work and the proposed private matters, and no pertinent department confidences or secrets on the stated facts.

The opinion said a conflict would exist if the lawyer held protected information from substantially related matters that could be used against the department. It also considered the former Code's appearance provisions but found no violation on the circumstances given.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was a waiting period required?

A: No. The committee permitted immediate representation on the facts supplied.

Q: Would unrelated contact with the company during government service bar the work?

A: No. The opinion described only occasional involvement in discrete matters and found no substantial relationship.

Q: What could change the answer?

A: Possession of department secrets or confidences from substantially related work could create a conflict.

Background and rules framework

The committee applied former Code DR 9-101(B), Canon 9 and EC 9-3 to former government employment and DR 4-101(B) to protected information.

Citations and references

Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:

  • Canon 9, EC 9-3, DR 9-101(B), DR 4-101(B)

Other opinions cited:

  • Vermont Opinion 85-6

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1986. 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