Can a lawyer who left a federal agency join a firm that sues the agency, and can the firm screen the lawyer from cases he worked on?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who had previously been employed by a federal agency proposed to be employed by a private law firm that represented parties adverse to the agency. The committee was of the opinion that, where the firm represented parties in matters adverse to the agency in which the lawyer had no involvement while employed by the agency, there would be no violation of RPC 1.11.

For the cases in which the lawyer had some involvement, it appeared to the committee that he had "personally and substantially" participated in those cases while employed with the agency. The committee was therefore of the opinion that RPC 1.11 would preclude the lawyer from any involvement in those cases, but would not necessarily preclude the firm from continuing to represent its clients, provided that RPC 1.11 is complied with, including appropriate screening and notice to the agency.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 1.11 on successive government and private employment, including its screening and notice provisions, was later renumbered and amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a former agency lawyer take a job at a firm that sues the agency?

A: Per the opinion, yes as to matters adverse to the agency in which the lawyer had no involvement while at the agency; the committee found no RPC 1.11 violation there.

Q: What about cases the lawyer worked on at the agency?

A: The committee was of the opinion that, having "personally and substantially" participated in those cases, RPC 1.11 precluded the lawyer from any involvement in them.

Q: Does the lawyer's disqualification force the whole firm out of those cases?

A: Not necessarily. The committee was of the opinion that the firm could continue to represent its clients provided it complied with RPC 1.11, including appropriate screening and notice to the agency.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington RPC 1.11 on successive government and private employment, corresponding to Model Rule 1.11. The committee distinguished matters in which the former agency lawyer had no involvement (no violation) from matters in which he had "personally and substantially" participated (personal disqualification), and it allowed the firm to continue subject to RPC 1.11's screening and notice requirements.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.11 (successive government and private employment; screening and notice), corresponding to Model Rule 1.11.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1050: successive government and private employment and the narrow definition of "matter"
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1055: a government agency lawyer's duties in debt collection
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1002: a city attorney serving on a civic body adverse to the city

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=175

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1064
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.11
Subject: Conflict of interest; employment by firm representing parties adverse to prior employer

Your inquiry presents a situation wherein you have previously been employed by a federal agency, and now propose to be employed by a private law firm which represents parties adverse to the federal agency. The Committee was of the opinion that, where the law firm represents parties in matters adverse to the federal agency, in which you had no involvement while employed by the agency, there would be no violation of RPC 1.11. However, in the facts presented by your inquiry wherein you had some involvement in certain cases, it appeared to the Committee that you had "personally and substantially" participated in those cases while employed with the federal agency, and therefore the Committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.11 would preclude you from any involvement in those cases, but would not necessarily preclude the firm from continuing to represent their clients provided that RPC 1.11 is complied with, including appropriate screening and notice to the agency.