Could a Vermont law office rehire a former state employee while handling cases adverse to the state?

Short answer Opinion 86-02 allowed the hire and continued cases because the lawyer had no substantial state responsibility in them and, on the stated assumption, held no state confidences or secrets.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1986

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 Not binding precedent.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 briefly worked for a private office, then joined state government. The private office later proposed rehiring the lawyer while representing parties in cases adverse to the state, including a case the lawyer had researched before government service.

The committee said DR 9-101(B) restricted later private employment only where the lawyer had actual significant responsibility for the matter as a public employee. On the stated facts, the lawyer had not participated in the state side of the pending cases, so the firm could continue them after the hire.

The opinion separately assumed that the lawyer possessed no state confidences or secrets from those matters. It said the confidentiality rule did not bar the work under that assumption.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did brief prior private work on a case create substantial government responsibility?

A: No. The committee focused on what the lawyer actually did as a state employee and found no involvement in those cases.

Q: What assumption supported the confidentiality conclusion?

A: The committee assumed the lawyer did not possess state confidences or secrets relevant to the pending matters.

Background and rules framework

The committee applied former Code DR 9-101(B) to substantial public responsibility and DR 4-101(B)(2) to use of former government client information.

Citations and references

Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:

  • DR 9-101(B), DR 4-101(B)(2)

Other opinions cited:

  • ABA Formal Opinion 342

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