Rule 1.09. Conflict of Interest: Former Client

RULE 1.09. Conflict of Interest: Former Client

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent

another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are

materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed

consent, confirmed in writing.

39

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related

matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously

represented a client:

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.05 and

1.09(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client gives informed consent,

confirmed in writing.

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former

firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former

client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when

the information has become generally known; or

(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would

permit or require with respect to a client.

Comment:

1. After termination of a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer has certain continuing duties to

the former client with respect to confidentiality and conflicts of interest and thus may not

represent another client except in conformity with this Rule. Under this Rule, for example, a

lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on

behalf of the former client. So also, a lawyer who has prosecuted an accused person could not

properly represent the accused in a subsequent civil action against the government concerning

the same matter

may not

represent another client except in conformity with this Rule. Under this Rule, for example, a

lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on

behalf of the former client. So also, a lawyer who has prosecuted an accused person could not

properly represent the accused in a subsequent civil action against the government concerning

the same matter. Nor could a lawyer who has represented multiple clients in a matter

represent one of the clients against the others in the same or a substantially related matter after

a dispute arose among the clients in that matter. Current and former government lawyers must

comply with this Rule to the extent required by Rule 1.11.

2. The scope of a “matter” for purposes of this Rule depends on the facts of a particular

situation or transaction. When a lawyer has been directly involved in a specific transaction,

subsequent representation of other clients with materially adverse interests in that transaction

clearly is prohibited. On the other hand, a lawyer who recurrently handled a type of problem

for a former client is not precluded from later representing another client in a factually distinct

problem of that type even though the subsequent representation involves a position adverse to

the former client. The underlying question is whether the lawyer was so involved in the matter

that the subsequent representation can be justly regarded as a changing of sides in the matter

in question.

3. Matters are “substantially related” for purposes of this Rule if they involve the same

transaction or legal dispute or if there otherwise is a substantial risk that confidential

information obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client’s position

in the subsequent matter. For example, a lawyer who has represented a businessperson and

learned extensive private financial information about that person may not then represent that

if they involve the same

transaction or legal dispute or if there otherwise is a substantial risk that confidential

information obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client’s position

in the subsequent matter. For example, a lawyer who has represented a businessperson and

learned extensive private financial information about that person may not then represent that

40

person’s spouse in seeking a divorce. Similarly, a lawyer who has previously represented a

client in securing environmental permits to build a shopping center would be precluded from

representing neighbors seeking to oppose rezoning of the property based on environmental

considerations; however, the lawyer would not be precluded, on the grounds of substantial

relationship, from defending a tenant of the completed shopping center in resisting eviction

for nonpayment of rent. Information that has been disclosed to the public or to other parties

adverse to the former client ordinarily will not be disqualifying. Information acquired in a

prior representation may have been rendered obsolete by the passage of time, a circumstance

that may be relevant in determining whether two representations are substantially related. In

the case of an organizational client, general knowledge of the client’s policies and practices

ordinarily will not preclude a subsequent representation; on the other hand, knowledge of

specific facts gained in a prior representation that are relevant to the matter in question

ordinarily will preclude such a representation. A former client is not required to reveal the

confidential information learned by the lawyer to establish a substantial risk that the lawyer

has confidential information to use in the subsequent matter. A conclusion about the

possession of such information may be based on the nature of the services the lawyer

provided the former client and information that would in ordinary practice be learned by a

lawyer providing such services

veal the

confidential information learned by the lawyer to establish a substantial risk that the lawyer

has confidential information to use in the subsequent matter. A conclusion about the

possession of such information may be based on the nature of the services the lawyer

provided the former client and information that would in ordinary practice be learned by a

lawyer providing such services.

Lawyers Moving Between Firms

4. Paragraph (b) operates to disqualify a lawyer who has moved firms only when the lawyer

has actual knowledge of information protected by Rules 1.05 and 1.09(c). Thus, if a lawyer

while with one firm acquired no knowledge or information relating to a particular client of the

firm, and that lawyer later joined another firm, the lawyer is not disqualified from

representing another client in the same or a related matter even though the interests of the two

clients conflict. See Rule 1.10(b) for the restrictions on a firm once a lawyer has terminated

association with the firm.

5. Application of paragraph (b) depends on a situation’s particular facts, aided by reasonable

inferences, deductions, or presumptions about the way in which lawyers work together. A

lawyer may have general access to files of all clients of a law firm and may regularly

participate in discussions of their affairs; it should be inferred that such a lawyer is privy to all

information about all the firm’s clients. In contrast, another lawyer may have access to the

files of only a limited number of clients and may not participate in discussions of the firm’s

other clients; in the absence of information to the contrary, it should be inferred that such a

lawyer is privy to information about the clients actually served but not those of the firm’s

other clients. In such an inquiry, the burden of proof should rest upon the firm whose

disqualification is sought.

6. A lawyer changing professional association has a continuing duty to preserve

confidentiality of information about a former client

n to the contrary, it should be inferred that such a

lawyer is privy to information about the clients actually served but not those of the firm’s

other clients. In such an inquiry, the burden of proof should rest upon the firm whose

disqualification is sought.

6. A lawyer changing professional association has a continuing duty to preserve

confidentiality of information about a former client. See Rules 1.05 and 1.09(c).

7. Paragraph (c) provides that information acquired by the lawyer while representing a client

may not subsequently be used or revealed by the lawyer to the disadvantage of the client.

However, the fact that a lawyer has once served a client does not preclude the lawyer from

using generally known information about that client when later representing another client.

8. The provisions of this Rule are for the protection of former clients and can be waived if the

41

client gives informed consent confirmed in writing under paragraphs (a) and (b). With regard

to disqualification of a firm with which a lawyer is or was formerly associated, see Rule 1.10.