Can a former government attorney join a firm that is litigating against the attorney's former agency?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked about a government attorney leaving government service to associate with a law firm that represented a plaintiff suing his former agency. As an agency employee he had held a supervisory (not legal) position, with some awareness and supervisory responsibility for the defense of the case but without being the attorney who represented the agency. The opinion looked to DR 9-101(B), ABA Formal Opinion 342, and the then-new ABA Model Rule 1.11 for guidance.

DR 9-101(B) provides that a lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility while a public employee. The opinion adopted ABA Formal Opinion 342's definitions: a "matter" is a discrete and isolatable transaction or set of transactions between identifiable parties (which clearly includes a particular piece of litigation), and "substantial responsibility" means a close and direct relationship in which the official became personally involved to an important, material degree in the investigative or deliberative process, not mere perfunctory approval. Whether the government lawyer exercised substantial responsibility is determined on the facts of each case. The opinion stressed that DR 9-101(B) uses "public employee," not "lawyer," so it applies regardless of whether the former public work was work normally handled by lawyers.

The opinion explained that an individual lawyer's disqualification under DR 9-101(B) does not necessarily extend to the firm under DR 5-105(D). Following ABA Formal Opinion 342 and Model Rule 1.11, a disqualified lawyer may be screened from any direct or indirect participation in the matter and apportioned no part of the fee, with prompt written notice to the appropriate government agency, so the firm may continue. The opinion reproduced Model Rule 1.11 in full, including its screening requirements, its bar on using confidential government information against a person, and its definitions of "matter" and "confidential government information," and stated that Opinion 342 continues to guide Alaska to the extent it is not inconsistent with Rule 1.11.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983, before the Alaska Bar Association's adoption of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (it applies the former Code of Professional Responsibility while reproducing the then-new ABA Model Rule 1.11) and before the 2009 revisions to those rules. Rule 1.11 has since been amended, and its current text and screening requirements differ from the 1983 version reproduced here. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or screening requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a former government lawyer take a private matter against the former agency?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer may not accept private employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility as a public employee, decided case by case.

Q: Does it matter that the former government job was not a legal position?

A: No. The opinion concluded DR 9-101(B) uses "public employee," not "lawyer," so it applies regardless of whether the former public work was normally handled by lawyers.

Q: Is the whole firm disqualified if one lawyer is conflicted?

A: The opinion concluded the firm need not be disqualified if the conflicted lawyer is screened from participation, apportioned no part of the fee, and prompt written notice is given to the agency, per ABA Formal Opinion 342 and Model Rule 1.11.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Code's successive-government-employment rule (DR 9-101(B)) and imputation rule (DR 5-105(D)), the subjects now treated by Model Rule 1.11 (former and current government officers and employees) and Model Rule 1.9 (former clients). It relied on ABA Formal Opinion 342 for the definitions of "matter" and "substantial responsibility" and reproduced the 1983 text of Model Rule 1.11.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (former Code and Model Rules):

• DR 9-101(B) (no private employment in a matter of prior substantial public responsibility) (cf. Model Rule 1.11)
• DR 5-105(D) (imputed disqualification)
• Model Rule 1.11 (1983 text; successive government and private employment); Model Rule 1.9 (former clients)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion 342 (Nov. 24, 1975): definitions of "matter" and "substantial responsibility"; screening of a disqualified former government lawyer

See also

• Alaska Ethics Op. 95-2: Former Government Employee Conflicts
• Alaska Ethics Op. 83-5: Disqualification After a Lateral Hire
• Alaska Ethics Op. 99-2: Municipal Attorney Advising a Quasi-Judicial Board

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/83-4.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Ethics Opinion No. 83-4
Propriety of a Government Attorney Entering Private Practice with a Firm
Handling Litigation Against the Attorney's Former Agency.
The Ethics Committee has been requested to issue an opinion regarding
the ethical responsibility of a government attorney who leaves government
service for private practice. In this particular case, the government attorney
proposes to associate with a law firm which represents a plaintiff suing the
government lawyer's agency. As an employee of the agency, the government
lawyer did not occupy a legal position, but occupied a supervisory position. In
such a supervisory position, the government lawyer had some awareness and
supervisory responsibility for the defense of the case, but was not the attorney
actually representing the agency.
The provisions of American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.11 and American Bar Association Formal Opinion 342 (November
24, 1975) provide guidance regarding the manner in which successive
government and private employment is to be treated in Alaska.
DR 9-101(B) provides:
A lawyer shall not accept private, employment in a matter in which he had
substantial responsibility while he was a public employee.
If an attorney is prohibited by DR 9-101(B) from accepting private
employment, then DR 5-105(D) may prohibit any partner or associate of his
firm from accepting or continuing such employment.
DR 9-101(B) is discussed in American Bar Association Formal Opinion
342 (November 24, 1975). In that opinion, the American Bar Association
defined "matter" and "substantial responsibility" as follows:
. . . matter is the discrete and isolatable transaction or set of transactions between
identifiable parties.
. . . substantial responsibility envisages a much closer and more direct relationship
than that of a mere perfunctory approval or disapproval of the matter in question.
It contemplates a responsibility requiring the official to become personally
involved to an important, material degree, in the investigative or deliberative
processes regarding the transactions or facts in question. With a responsibility so
strong and compelling that he probably became involved in the investigative or
decisional processes, a lawyer upon leaving the government service should not
represent another in regard to that matter . . . in that accepting subsequent
employment regarding that same matter creates a suspicion that the lawyer
conducted his governmental work in a way to facilitate his own future
employment in that matter.
1

The definition of "matter" obviously includes a particular piece of
litigation. Whether or not the government lawyer exercised "substantial
responsibility" is a matter which must be determined under the facts of each
particular case.
American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 342 also makes it clear
that it is significant that DR 9-101(B) uses the words "public employee," and
not the word "lawyer." DR 9-101(B) accordingly applies to the lawyer whose
former public or governmental employment was in any capacity and without
regard to whether it involved work normally handled by lawyers.
The command of refusal of employment by an individual lawyer set forth
in DR 9-101(B), however, does not necessarily activate the extension of that
disqualification to the firm set forth in DR 5-105(D). American Bar Association
Formal Opinion No. 342 recognizes that an individual lawyer, who is
disqualified, maybe screened from any direct or indirect participation in the
matter. This is allowed because an inflexible extension of disqualification
throughout the firm would often result in a real hardship to a client if complete
withdrawal of representation was mandated, because substantial work may
have been completed regarding specific litigation prior to the time the
government employee joined the law firm or the client may have relied in the
past on representation by the firm. This screening procedure has been
commonly recognized for many years as a method of dealing with successive
government and private employment of attorneys. The present status of the
development of this area of legal ethics appears as Rule 1.11 in the 1983
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
In dealing with matters rising under DR 9-101(B), the provisions of
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.11 provide
guidance. This rule provides:
(a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer shall not represent a
private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated
personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the
appropriate government agency consents after consultation. No lawyer in a firm
with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue representation in
the matter unless:
(1) the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter
and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
(2) written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government agency
to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this rule.
(b) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer who has
knowledge, acquired as a public officer or employee, of confidential
2

government information about a person may not represent a private client
whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the
information is material. No lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is
associated may undertake or continue representation in the matter unless:
(1) the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter
and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom: and
(2) written notice is promptly given to the adverse party to enable that
person to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this rule.
(c) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer serving as a
public officer or employee shall not:
(1) participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and
substantially while in private practice or nongovernmental employment,
unless under applicable law no one is, or by lawful delegation may be,
authorized to act in the lawyer's stead in the matter: or
(2) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a
party or as attorney for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is
participating personally and substantially.
(d) As used in this Rule, the term "matter" includes:
(1) any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or
other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge,
accusation, arrest or other particular matter involving a specific party or
parties; and
(2) any other matter covered by the conflict of interest rules of the
appropriate government agency.
(e) As used in this Rule, the term "confidential government information"
means information which, at the time this rule is applied, the government
is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has legal privilege not
to disclose.
American Bar Association Formal Opinion 342 (November 24, 1975) also
provides guidance regarding the manner in which successive government and
private employment is to be treated in Alaska, to the extent that Opinion No.
342 is not inconsistent with Rule 1.11.
Approved by the Board of Governors on June 8, 1983.

3