The Screened Paralegal Who Shared a Pod
Lena is a paralegal who worked for 18 months at Firm A on a construction-defect case, Cedar Ridge Condominium Ass’n v. Northline Builders. She attended client meetings, organized 4,200 documents, and prepared a damage chronology using Firm A’s internal evaluation of the general contractor’s “worst witness.” On Monday she starts at Firm B, which represents Northline Builders, the defendant in the same case. Firm B’s managing partner wants Lena to work on the case because she knows the file. Firm B has a written screening policy: new nonlawyer employees sign an affidavit, are walled off from the matter, and do not share files. But Lena’s new desk is in the same pod as the associate handling the case, and the case files are on a shared drive accessible to all paralegals. Firm A learns of the move and sends a letter demanding that Firm B be disqualified and Lena be barred from the matter. The first case management conference is in 10 days.
1. What New Jersey ethical rules govern a nonlawyer’s move from one firm to an adverse firm, and how do they differ from the rules for lawyers?
Read the worked answer
Lawyers are subject to RPC 1.9 (former-client conflicts) and RPC 1.10 (imputation), which can disqualify an entire firm unless the conflicted lawyer is screened and the former client consents. Nonlawyers are not “lawyers” under those rules; the firm’s duty is governed by RPC 5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer assistance) and RPC 1.6 (confidentiality). New Jersey courts generally allow a firm to continue representing a client despite a nonlawyer’s prior work on the other side if the firm timely and effectively screens the nonlawyer, the nonlawyer does not disclose confidential information, and the nonlawyer does not work on the matter. The screen must be real, not a piece of paper. If the nonlawyer has material confidential information and the screen is inadequate, disqualification is possible.
2. Evaluate Firm B’s screening plan. Is it adequate? What changes should be made?
Read the worked answer
On these facts, the plan is not adequate. An affidavit and a promise not to share files do not cure a shared drive and a shared pod. Lena should be walled off from the Cedar Ridge matter: no access to the case file or shared drive folder, no attendance at case meetings, no discussions with the associate, and a separate workspace or at least a clear instruction that the associate not discuss the matter near her. The firm should appoint a screening officer, log her acknowledgment, and confirm in writing that she will not disclose Firm A information. The firm should also notify Firm A of the screen and consider whether Lena can work on unrelated matters. If the firm cannot implement these steps before the conference, it should not assign her to the case and may need to seek a continuance. The test is whether the screen is timely and effective.
3. The associate asks Lena, “Just tell me who Firm A’s worst witness is-it’s already in the public file.” What should Lena do?
Read the worked answer
She should decline. Even if the identity of a witness is public, her knowledge of Firm A’s internal evaluation-“worst witness”-is confidential information she learned at Firm A. She should not confirm, deny, or hint. She should say: “I’m screened from that matter; I can’t discuss it.” She should report the request to the screening officer and document it. If the associate persists, she should escalate to the managing partner. The fact that some information is public does not waive the firm’s confidentiality as to strategy or evaluation. Her obligation continues after she leaves Firm A.