How far must a lawyer go to check for conflicts after moving to a new firm?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer who recently transferred to a new firm described the conflict check performed: comparing lists from the former firm of the lawyer's current clients and their spouses' names, as well as past clients' last names, against the past and current client lists of the new firm.
The committee determined that the lawyer had done all the lawyer can to check client conflicts, because RPC 1.9 and 1.10 focus on knowingly representing a client when a conflict exists.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 1.9 and 1.10 correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.9 (duties to former clients) and 1.10 (imputation of conflicts).
Common questions
Q: How thorough must a lateral-moving lawyer's conflict check be?
A: The committee determined that comparing the lawyer's client and spouse names and past clients' last names against the new firm's past and current client lists was all the lawyer can do, because RPC 1.9 and 1.10 turn on knowingly representing a client when a conflict exists.
Q: Why did the committee tie the answer to the lawyer's knowledge?
A: The committee read RPC 1.9 and 1.10 to focus on knowingly representing a client when a conflict exists, so a reasonable comparison of the available client lists satisfied the duty.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.9) and RPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.10). The committee emphasized the knowledge element of both rules, treating a reasonable comparison of client and spouse names across the two firms' lists as sufficient diligence.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Washington RPC 1.9
- ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.10
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=741
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1659
Year Issued: 1996
RPC(s): RPC 1.9; 1.10
Subject: Conflict of interest; checking conflicts when changing firms
You recently transferred employment to another law firm. To check conflicts between clients in your former firm with clients in the firm you are now with, you compared lists from the former firm of your current clients with their spouses' names, as well as past clients' last names, with past current client lists of the firm with which you are now practicing. The Committee determined that you have done all you can to check client conflicts because RPC 1.9 and 1.10 focus on knowingly representing a client when a conflict exists.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1996 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.