Could a Vermont lawyer represent a new applicant in a regulatory proceeding where a former client was a competing party?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A firm had represented a partnership in a corporate acquisition requiring Public Service Board approval. Later, it represented two companies whose regulatory proposals competed with a proposal by that former client in a consolidated proceeding.
The committee applied its substantial-relationship test for successive representations. It accepted the stated facts that the acquisition and new regulatory proposals involved different facts and legal issues and that the firm had learned no pertinent former-client confidences or secrets.
The committee allowed the new representation despite the former client appearing as a competing party. It stressed that DR 4-101(B)'s limits on using protected former-client information applied whether or not the matters were substantially related.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the former client’s presence as a competitor enough to disqualify counsel?
A: No. The opinion found no conflict on the stated lack of substantial relationship and protected information.
Q: Did the substantial-relationship test replace the confidentiality rule?
A: No. The committee said DR 4-101(B) applied regardless of that test.
Q: What earlier representation did the lawyer perform?
A: The firm represented the former client in a corporate acquisition requiring Public Service Board approval, rather than in the later competing proposals.
Background and rules framework
The committee applied former Code DR 4-101(B) and its earlier substantial-relationship analysis to successive representation. It compared Vermont Opinions 79-26 and 85-6 and cited Silver Chrysler Plymouth.
Citations and references
Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:
- DR 4-101(B)
Cases:
- In Re Themelis, 117 Vt. 19, 23 (1951), former-client duties; Emle Industries, Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562 (2d Cir. 1973), former-client conflicts; Silver Chrysler Plymouth v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, 518 F.2d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1975), substantial relationship
Other opinions cited:
- Vermont Opinions 78-3, 83-6, 79-26, 81-4, and 85-6; ABA Informal Opinion 885
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 88-12: Unrelated former clients
- Vermont Ethics Op. 91-16: Former insured and insurer
Source
- Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 89-15
- 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 1989. 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