WSBA 1986

When a lawyer moves to a firm that opposes clients of the lawyer's old firm, is the new firm disqualified?

Short answer: The committee concluded that, so long as the moving lawyer has no actual knowledge of the adverse parties' confidences or secrets and is not involved in the case, RPC 1.10 would not disqualify the new firm from continuing to represent its clients.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1986
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The inquiry came from a lawyer now employed by a firm that represented parties adverse to other parties represented by the lawyer's former firm. The question was whether the lawyer's presence imputed a disqualification to the new firm under RPC 1.10.

The committee was of the opinion that, so long as the lawyer has no actual knowledge of the confidences or secrets of the adverse parties and is not involved with the case, RPC 1.10 would not disqualify the new firm from continuing to represent its clients. The committee tied its conclusion to the absence of actual knowledge of confidences and the lawyer's non-involvement in the matter.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does a lateral hire automatically disqualify the new firm from cases against the old firm's clients?

A: Under this 1986 opinion, no. The committee concluded RPC 1.10 would not disqualify the new firm where the moving lawyer has no actual knowledge of the adverse parties' confidences or secrets and is not involved in the case.

Q: What facts did the committee rely on?

A: That the lawyer had no actual knowledge of the adverse parties' confidences or secrets and was not involved with the case.

Q: What rule governs imputing one lawyer's conflict to the whole firm?

A: RPC 1.10, which addresses imputed disqualification within a firm.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.10 (Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.10) addresses when one lawyer's conflict is imputed to the other lawyers in the lawyer's firm. The committee applied RPC 1.10 to a lawyer who had moved firms, and concluded the new firm was not disqualified where the lawyer lacked actual knowledge of the adverse parties' confidences and was not involved in the matter.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest)
  • Washington RPC 1.10

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

The Rules of Professional Conduct Committee reviewed your recent inquiry concerning your present employment with a law firm which represents parties who are adverse to other parties represented by your former law firm employer. The Committee was of the opinion that so long as you have no actual knowledge of confidences or secrets of the adverse parties and you are not involved with case, RPC 1.10 would not disqualify your present law firm from continuing representation of their clients.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.