Lateral Lawyer, Former Client, and an Advance Conflict Waiver
Attorney Maya worked for three years at Harlow & Pike, where she was one of six lawyers on a products-liability defense team for Cascade Stove Co. Maya's role was limited to reviewing deposition summaries and drafting discovery responses; she never spoke with Cascade's executives and did not attend strategy meetings. She recently joined Bell & Ortiz, which represents plaintiff Elena Ruiz in a burn-injury case against Cascade arising from a different stove model. On Maya's first day, the managing partner asks her to help draft a motion to compel Cascade's internal testing records. Harlow & Pike's engagement letter with Cascade includes a broad advance waiver of future conflicts but does not mention Maya or screening. Maya did not bring any Cascade documents. Bell & Ortiz has implemented a screen: Maya will not access the Cascade file, and the firm will notify Cascade in writing.
1. Under the ABA Model Rules, may Bell & Ortiz represent Ruiz? Analyze Maya's personal conflict, imputation, the screening exception, and the advance waiver.
Read the worked answer
Maya's personal conflict is assessed first. Under Model Rule 1.9(a), a lawyer who formerly represented a client may not represent another person in a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the former client without informed consent. Cascade is a former client; Ruiz's case is adverse; the question is substantial relationship. Maya worked on a Cascade products-liability defense team, reviewed deposition summaries, and drafted discovery responses. Even if the stove model differs, the subject matter-design, testing, warnings, and corporate knowledge-is likely substantially related. Maya's role may be limited, but it was substantive and gave her confidential information about Cascade's defense practices. If Maya is personally disqualified, Rule 1.10(a) imputes the conflict to Bell & Ortiz. The screening exception in Rule 1.10(a)(2) applies only if Maya had no substantial involvement in the prior matter. On these facts, the firm should not rely on screening without a careful review of what she actually saw. The broad advance waiver does not save the firm: it does not identify the future matter or explain the screening, and an open-ended waiver is unlikely to be informed consent. The firm should either decline the Ruiz matter, keep Maya completely out and seek Cascade's informed written consent after full disclosure, or document that her involvement was truly de minimis and use the screen plus written notice.
2. How would the analysis change if Maya had only reviewed public court filings, and what must the firm do to make a screen effective?
Read the worked answer
If Maya had only reviewed public court filings, the substantial-relationship analysis changes. Public filings do not ordinarily convey confidential information, and Maya would have less basis to be personally disqualified. Bell & Ortiz could then rely on Rule 1.10(a)(2) if Maya had no substantial involvement, the firm screened her, and it gave written notice to Cascade. But the screen must be timely, documented, and effective: no access to the file, no discussions about the matter, no share of the fee, and separate office space or password restrictions. The firm should also confirm that Maya did not learn confidential information from Harlow & Pike colleagues. Even with a valid screen, the firm should consider whether Cascade's advance waiver is enforceable; if not, written notice plus an opportunity to object may be required. If Cascade objects, the firm should seek a court ruling before using Maya on the matter. The managing partner should not assign Maya to the motion to compel without completing this analysis.