Disciplinary Liability and the Duty of Confidentiality
Advocate Georgiev represented a client, Stoyan, in a commercial dispute. After the case ended, Georgiev joined a law firm that was concurrently advising Stoyan's former opponent, Mira, in an unrelated matter. Georgiev had learned during the first case that Mira's company had a hidden ownership structure. In the new matter, Georgiev mentions this fact to a colleague at the firm, who uses it to press Mira in negotiations. Mira learns of the disclosure and files a complaint with the Bar. Georgiev says the information was public in a commercial register and that he never represented Mira.
1. Has Georgiev breached confidentiality, and does the public-register argument help?
Read the worked answer
Yes, likely breached. The duty of confidentiality covers information learned in the course of representation regardless of whether it is technically public; what matters is that the lawyer obtained it through the professional relationship and that disclosure could harm the former client's interests. The fact that a detail appears in a register does not license a lawyer to weaponize it against the person from whom it was learned in confidence. The duty survives termination of the mandate and continues indefinitely for information whose disclosure could harm the client.
The public-register argument fails because the breach is not about the information's accessibility but about the lawyer's use of a position of trust. Even public information can be confidential in context when its strategic significance derives from the representation.
2. Analyze the conflict of interest arising from Georgiev's move to the new firm.
Read the worked answer
Two layers exist. First, Georgiev personally is conflicted: he holds confidential information from Stoyan that is relevant to Mira, the firm's current client. A lawyer may not act against a former client in a matter where information from the prior representation is material. Second, the firm may be disqualified vicariously. Under the rules on imputed conflicts, when a lawyer with confidential information joins a firm, the firm must screen the lawyer from the matter and the lawyer must not disclose the information. Georgiev did the opposite: he volunteered the information to a colleague, which taints the firm.
The appropriate remedy is withdrawal from the Mira matter (or at minimum an effective screen and Mira's informed consent, though consent is doubtful because the information was already misused). The firm cannot cure the leak by asserting the information was public.
3. What disciplinary consequences are plausible, and what should Georgiev have done?
Read the worked answer
Plausible sanctions range from a reprimand to suspension, depending on the harm to Mira and whether the leak was deliberate. Aggravating: the disclosure was to a colleague for use in negotiations, directly harming a person whose interests the firm was retained to protect. Mitigating: no prior record, and the information may have been partly public. A fine plus reprimand is realistic; suspension is possible if the misuse caused measurable loss.
Georgiev should have disclosed the potential conflict to his new firm on joining, been screened from the Mira matter, and refrained from discussing any information from the Stoyan case. If screening was impossible, the firm should have declined the Mira engagement. He also owed Stoyan notice that he was moving to a firm with an adverse client, so Stoyan could assess the risk.