Is a lawyer or his new firm disqualified from suing parties his former firm defends, when he did no work on the matters at the old firm?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer's current firm represented plaintiffs in two cases in which his prior firm represented the defendants. In the first matter, the event at issue occurred after the lawyer left the first firm. The second matter was pending while the lawyer worked at the first firm, but he did not work on the case and was not familiar with the factual bases of the claims; he had, however, represented the same defendant in unrelated legal matters.

The committee reviewed the inquiry and, based only on the facts as set forth in it, was of the opinion that neither RPC 1.9 nor RPC 1.10 would disqualify the lawyer or his law firm from continuing to represent the client.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules then numbered RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients) and RPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification) correspond to Model Rules 1.9 and 1.10 and were later amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer's new firm sue a party that the lawyer's former firm is defending?

A: Per the opinion, yes on these facts. The committee was of the opinion that neither RPC 1.9 nor RPC 1.10 would disqualify the lawyer or his firm from continuing to represent the plaintiffs.

Q: Did it matter that the lawyer did no work on the matter while at the old firm?

A: The committee emphasized the facts: in one case the event arose after the lawyer left the first firm, and in the other he did not work on the case and was not familiar with the factual bases of the claims. On those facts, it found no RPC 1.9 or RPC 1.10 disqualification.

Q: Did representing the same defendant in unrelated matters change the result?

A: No on the facts presented. Even though the lawyer had represented the same defendant in unrelated legal matters at the old firm, the committee was of the opinion that neither rule disqualified him or his firm from the current representation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies two rules. The rule then numbered Washington RPC 1.9, corresponding to Model Rule 1.9, governs duties to former clients. The rule then numbered Washington RPC 1.10, corresponding to Model Rule 1.10, governs imputed disqualification within a firm. The committee tied its no-disqualification conclusion to the specific facts: no involvement in or familiarity with the matters at the former firm, and one event occurring only after the lawyer's departure.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9.
• Washington RPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification), corresponding to Model Rule 1.10.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1022: imputed disqualification of a lateral lawyer who held no confidences
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1064: a former agency lawyer joining a firm adverse to the agency, with screening
• WSBA Ethics Op. 911: a contract attorney working for several firms and imputed conflicts

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=239

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1159
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.9; 1.10
Subject: Conflict of interest; imputed disqualification; lawyer's former law firm representing opposing parties

[The lawyer's current law firm represents plaintiffs in two cases in which his prior law firm represents the defendants. In the first matter, the event at issue occurred after the lawyer left the first law firm. The second matter was pending while the lawyer worked at the first law firm, but he did not work on the case and was not familiar with the factual bases of the claims. However, he did represent the same defendant in unrelated legal matters.] The Committee reviewed your inquiry, and based only upon the facts as set forth in that inquiry, the Committee was of the opinion that neither RPC 1.9 nor RPC 1.10 would disqualify you or your law firm from continuing to represent your client.