Model Rule 1.10: Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule

When it applies

This comes up whenever a firm wants to take on a matter and one of its lawyers has a personal conflict from current or former client representations, or when a lawyer switches firms and the new firm must assess whether the lawyer's prior conflicts taint the whole new firm. On the MPRE, it frequently tests whether screening can cure an imputed conflict and whether a conflict is "personal" to one lawyer versus a firm-wide problem.

What the rule requires

• If a lawyer would be prohibited from representing a client under Rule 1.7 or 1.9 because of conflicts with a current or former client, no other lawyer in the firm may knowingly undertake or continue that representation.
• The imputation applies firm-wide, treating all lawyers affiliated with a firm as if they were one lawyer for conflicts purposes.
• The firm must obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing, from the affected client(s) to waive an imputed conflict when waiver is otherwise permissible under Rule 1.7.
• When a lawyer leaves a firm, the firm is not barred from later representing a person with interests materially adverse to a client of the departed lawyer whom the firm no longer represents, unless both (1) the matter is the same as or substantially related to the one in which the departed lawyer represented that client and (2) a lawyer remaining in the firm has material information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c).
• A firm seeking to avoid imputation of a lateral lawyer's former-client conflict under Rule 1.9(a) or (b) arising from the lawyer's prior firm must timely screen the incoming lawyer from the matter, apportion the lawyer no part of the fee from it, promptly give written notice to the affected former client, and provide certifications of compliance at reasonable intervals upon the former client's written request and upon termination of the screening.

Exceptions

• Imputation does not apply if the conflict is based on a lawyer's personal interest and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.
• Imputation does not apply to conflicts arising under Rule 1.9(a) or (b) that stem from the personally disqualified lawyer's association with a prior firm, if that lawyer is timely screened, is apportioned no part of the fee from the matter, written notice is promptly given to the affected former client, and certifications of compliance are provided at reasonable intervals upon the former client's written request and upon termination of the screening.
• Once a lawyer leaves a firm, the firm may represent a person adverse to a client of the departed lawyer whom the firm no longer represents, even without screening, unless the matter is the same or substantially related and a remaining lawyer has material confidential information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c).

How the MPRE tests Model Rule 1.10

• Students forget that screening under this rule generally works only for lateral-hire former-client conflicts (Rule 1.9 situations), not for current-client conflicts under Rule 1.7, which still require informed consent from the affected client.
• Questions test whether a conflict is 'personal' (e.g., a moral objection) versus one based on client-specific duties like confidentiality, since only a personal-interest conflict that does not significantly risk limiting the other lawyers' representation qualifies for the personal-interest exception; client-duty conflicts are imputed unless they are lateral Rule 1.9(a) or (b) conflicts that are properly screened or the client consents.
• Students assume any conflict can be cured by consent, but if the personally disqualified lawyer could not have obtained valid consent under Rule 1.7 themselves, the firm cannot cure it by having another lawyer handle it.
• MPRE fact patterns often test the departed-lawyer scenario, where students incorrectly assume the old firm remains permanently barred even after the conflicted lawyer leaves.