Conflicts of Interest and Professional Responsibility
Conflict questions test RPC 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10, plus the special problem of nonlawyer employees who move between firms or have personal ties to a party.
Concurrent conflicts
RPC 1.7(a) identifies a concurrent conflict when representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client, or when a significant risk exists that representation will be materially limited by responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interest. Some conflicts are consentable under RPC 1.7(b) with informed consent confirmed in writing; some are not, such as asserting a claim against a current client in the same litigation.
Former clients and imputation
RPC 1.9 bars representation substantially related to a former client's matter if the lawyer received confidential information, absent informed consent. RPC 1.10 imputes a lawyer's conflict to the firm, subject to the Rule's exceptions and client consent. Those rules are written for lawyers; a nonlawyer's conflict is not automatically imputed the same way.
Paralegal-specific screening
A paralegal must disclose prior employment, personal relationships, and financial interests that could affect a matter. If the paralegal worked on the other side, the firm should assess what confidential information was received and screen the paralegal from the matter, with no disclosure and no participation. Timely screening and documented instructions are the practical safeguards.
Worked example
A paralegal interviewed a plaintiff at a prior firm and now works for the defense firm. She must not reveal what she learned. The defense firm may continue if it screens her immediately, instructs staff not to discuss the case with her, and confirms she has not shared information.
Traps
'I won't say anything' without a formal screen is weak. Waiting until trial to screen is too late. Assuming a paralegal cannot create a conflict is wrong; the risk is confidential information, not lawyer imputation. Using prior-firm knowledge as 'background' is a violation.