Rule 1.11 Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees

[1] A lawyer who has served or is currently serving as a public officer or employee is personally subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct, including the prohibition against concurrent conflicts of interest stated in RPC 1.7 and the protections afforded former clients in RPC 1.9. In addition, such a lawyer is subject to RPC 1.11 and to statutes and government regulations regarding conflicts of interest. Such statutes and regulations may circumscribe the extent to which the government agency may give consent under this Rule. See RPC 1.0(e) for the definition of informed consent. [2] Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (d)(1) restate the obligations of an individual lawyer who has served or is currently serving as an officer or employee of the government toward a private client. Although RPC 1.10 is not applicable to the conflicts of interest addressed by this Rule, paragraph (b) of this Rule permits screening and notice to avoid imputation for lawyers moving into, or out of, positions as government officers or employees in the same manner as set forth for other lawyers in RPC 1.10(c). Requirements for screening procedures are stated in RPC 1.0(k) and RPC 1.0, Comments [8]-[10]. Because of the problems raised by imputation within a government agency, paragraph (d) does not impute the conflicts of a lawyer currently serving as an officer or employee of the government to other associated government officers or employees, although ordinarily it will be prudent to screen such lawyers. [3] Paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(2) apply regardless of whether a lawyer is adverse to a former client and are thus designed not only to protect the former client, but also to prevent a lawyer from exploiting public office for the advantage of another client. For example, a lawyer who has pursued a claim on behalf of the government may not pursue the same claim on behalf of a later private client after the lawyer has left government service, except when authorized to do so by the government agency under paragraph (a). Similarly, a lawyer who has pursued a claim on behalf of a private client may not pursue the claim on behalf of the government, except when authorized to do so by paragraph (d). As with paragraphs (a)(1) and (d)(1), RPC 1.10 is not applicable to the conflicts of interest addressed by these paragraphs. [4] This Rule represents a balancing of interests. On the one hand, where the successive clients are a government agency and a private client, the risk exists that power or discretion vested in that agency might be used for the special benefit of a private client. A lawyer should not be in a position where benefit to a private client might affect performance of the lawyer's professional functions on behalf of the government. Also, unfair advantage could accrue to the private client by reason of access to confidential government information about the client's adversary obtainable only through the lawyer's government service. On the other hand, the rules governing lawyers presently or formerly employed by a government agency should not be so restrictive as to inhibit transfer of employment to and from the government. The government has a legitimate need to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. Thus, a former government lawyer is disqualified only from particular matters in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially. The provisions for screening and waiver are necessary to prevent the disqualification rule from imposing too severe a deterrent against entering public service. The limitation of disqualification in paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(2) to matters involving a specific party or parties, rather than extending disqualification to all substantive issues on which the lawyer worked, serves a similar function. [5] When a lawyer has been employed by one government agency and then moves to a second government agency, it may be appropriate to treat that second agency as another client for purposes of this Rule, as when a lawyer is employed by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency. However, because the conflict of interest is governed by paragraph (d), the latter agency is not required to screen the lawyer as paragraph (b) requires a law firm to do. The question of whether two government agencies should be regarded as the same or different clients for conflict of interest purposes is beyond the scope of these Rules. See RPC 1.13, Comment [6]. [6] Paragraph (a)(2) does not require that a lawyer give notice to the government agency at a time when premature disclosure would injure the client; a requirement for premature disclosure might preclude engagement of the lawyer. Such notice is, however, required to be given as soon as practicable in order that the government agency will have a reasonable opportunity to ascertain that the lawyer is complying with RPC 1.11 and to take appropriate action if it believes the lawyer is not complying. [7] Paragraph (c) operates only when the lawyer in question has actual knowledge of the information; it does not operate with respect to information that merely could be imputed to the lawyer. [8] Paragraphs (b) and (d) do not prohibit a lawyer from jointly representing a private party and a government agency when doing so is permitted by RPC 1.7 and is not otherwise prohibited by law. [9] Paragraph (d) does not disqualify other lawyers in the agency with which the lawyer in question has become associated. [10] For purposes of paragraph (e) of this Rule, a "matter" may continue in another form. In determining whether two particular matters are the same, the lawyer should consider the extent to which the matters involve the same basic facts, the same or related parties, and the time elapsed. [11] In the absence of other law to the contrary, a government official or entity, like any other client, may waive a conflict of interest under this Rule. "Confirmed in writing" See RPC 1.0(b) "Firm" See RPC 1.0(c) "Informed consent" See RPC 1.0(e) "Knowingly" and "knows" See RPC 1.0(f) "Material" See RPC 1.0(o) "Reasonably" See RPC 1.0(h) "Screening" See RPC 1.0(k) "Substantially" See RPC 1.0(l)