Ethics Opinion 255

Use of Former Firm Lawyer on a Contract Basis

只要律所的客户准确地了解律所与合同靠谱的滚球平台之间的关系性质，并且没有造成律所与靠谱的滚球平台之间存在持续关系的印象，律所与该律所在个案基础上雇佣的前律所靠谱的滚球平台就不会被视为冲突目的的单一实体.

Applicable Rules

• Rule 1.5(e) (Division of Fees)
• Rule 1.7(b)(4) (Conflicts Created by Lawyer’s Own Interests)
• Rule 1.10(a) (Imputed Disqualification)
• Rule 7.1(a) (Communications Regarding a Lawyer’s Services)

Inquiry

询问者是一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所(以下简称“公司”)，在哥伦比亚特区从事法律业务，并根据D.C. Professional Corporations Act. One of its shareholder lawyers, whom we will refer to as B, 终止他与律所的雇佣协议以及他作为执业靠谱的滚球平台与律所的关系, although he will remain a shareholder in the Firm (as permitted by D.C. Code § 29-608) unless and until his shares are bought out by the Firm.  B will no longer, however, share in any profits or losses of the Firm, 他的名字不会出现在事务所的信笺上，也不会出现在Martindale-Hubbell或类似出版物上的任何事务所靠谱的滚球平台名单上.

B will become an officer of Corporation X, but his position with Corporation X will not involve the provision of legal services. Corporation X will sublease space from the Firm and B will occupy that subleased space. The sublease contains a provision obligating Corporation X and its employees, including B, to refrain from listening to or examining matters pertaining to firm clients or firm business. 本所还建立了一个筛选系统，并采取了其他步骤，以确保本所或其客户的机密信息不被泄露, without authorization, to Corporation X or to B. In addition, B将被排除在本所的冲突清除系统之外，因此无法获得有关本所新客户事务的信息.

Because of B’s expertise in a specialized area of the law in which the Firm will continue to practice, the Firm contemplates an arrangement with B, to which Corporation X has consented, in which it proposes to employ B from time to time, as an independent contractor, to assist the Firm as a lawyer or expert witness in providing legal services to the Firm’s clients. The Firm and B contemplate entering into a general contract, B同意考虑在特定事项中担任合同靠谱的滚球平台(指定为“特别靠谱的滚球平台”)或专家证人, or individual matter-specific contracts on each matter on which B is retained by the Firm. B will not be guaranteed any particular amount of payments from the Firm.

事务所还建议在给客户的宣传材料和信函中，说明B在其专业领域可以向事务所提供服务，前提是该等服务的提供符合道德规范并符合其对X公司的义务.

On the basis of these facts, 公司要求我们就(1)其考虑的安排是否会导致公司根据规则1承担责任提供意见.10 of any disqualification of B flowing from his status as an executive of Corporation X in matters in which B is not assisting the firm as an independent contractor; and (2) whether the representations that the Firm intends to make in promotional letters to clients are consistent with Rule 7.1.

Discussion

When B becomes an employee of Corporation X, he will not be acting as a lawyer for Corporation X. Most of the provisions of Rule 1.7, therefore, 不适用于B作为合同靠谱的滚球平台为事务所所做的工作，因为这些工作是由代表客户的靠谱的滚球平台在多个事项上触发的. However, B’s position with Corporation X could result in B’s disqualification, under Rule 1.7(b)(4),¹ from representing a client in a situation in which his professional judgment on behalf of that client would, or reasonably might, 受到B对X公司的责任或其在X公司的高层管理职位所产生的利益的不利影响.

In any case in which B would be disqualified from representing a client under Rule 1.7(b)(4) because of his responsibilities to or interest in Corporation X, the Firm clearly would also be disqualified under Rule 1.10(a) if B were associated with the Firm in that representation as a contract lawyer.² 调查提出的问题是，事务所与B的预期关系是否足以构成持续的联盟或联系，即使在B不是作为合同靠谱的滚球平台工作的事务所事务上，也可以归咎于事务所B的资格丧失.

We think not. To be sure, 该委员会和美国靠谱的滚球平台协会道德与职业责任常设委员会都认为，靠谱的滚球平台与事务所之间或两家事务所之间持续的“靠谱的滚球平台关系”(如“代理”靠谱的滚球平台事务所)会导致靠谱的滚球平台与事务所之间的持续关系, or the two firms, being treated as a single entity for conflicts purposes. See D.C. Opinion No. 192 (May 17, 1988); ABA Formal Opinion No. 84-351 (October 20, 1984). But, in our view, the association of a lawyer with a firm on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis does not create that kind of continuing relationship, triggering imputation under Section 1.10 of the individual lawyer’s disqualifications to the firm, 除非靠谱的滚球平台与律所在个别事务上有联系——只要律所不给客户或公众留下这种持续关系存在的印象.

Here, B will not be included on the Firm’s letterhead or in other listings of firm lawyers. 他将被禁止接触有关公司客户的机密信息以及他未作为独立承包商受雇的事项. 在给客户的宣传材料和信函中提到他的可用性，这将清楚地表明他可以根据具体情况处理具体问题，并且他与事务所没有持续的关系. We believe these steps are sufficient to avoid a general imputation of B’s disqualifications to the Firm. See ABA Formal Opinion 88-356 (Dec. 16, 1988).

We add, however, a cautionary note. We believe that the term “special counsel” should not be used to describe B’s relationship to the Firm. While the term might be appropriately thought to denote a relationship for the particular case only, 我们注意到，“特别顾问”一词也被许多靠谱的滚球平台事务所或多或少地与“靠谱的滚球平台”和“靠谱的滚球平台的”等术语互换使用,” to denominate a continuing relationship. See ABA Formal Opinion 90-357 (May 10, 1990). While it may be true that all these terms have an evolving rather than a fixed meaning (see D.C. Opinion No. 151 (April 16, 1985)), 我们认为，在本案中，本公司最好将B称为“顾问”或“合同靠谱的滚球平台”，而不是“特别靠谱的滚球平台”.”

The same caveat applies to the second question raised by the Inquiry. We see no violation of Rule 7.1³ in the Firm’s plans to describe for prospective clients, in promotional materials and letters, the availability of B as a contract lawyer or expert witness in particular cases. The key here is full and accurate disclosure. 正如美国靠谱的滚球平台协会委员会最近在讨论靠谱的滚球平台事务所之间的网络或联盟时所观察到的那样, “It is critical, no matter what words are used to describe the relationship between firms, 让客户获得信息，告诉他们这种关系的确切性质，以及与客户保留声称这种关系的律所有关的另一家律所的资源将在多大程度上可用.” ABA Formal Opinion 94-388 (December 5, 1994). The mandate of Rule 7.只有向所有可能与该关系相关的潜在客户和现有客户提供该关系的完整描述，才能满足第1条. Id.

The same principles apply here, 我们的结论是，公司就其与B的关系所计划的陈述足以确保遵守规则7.1. We again recommend, however, that the Firm not use the term “special counsel” to describe B’s relationship to the Firm.

Inquiry No. 95-2-3
Adopted: March 21,1995

1. Rule 1.7(b)(4) provides that a lawyer shall not, without the consent of the client, 在“靠谱的滚球平台代表客户的专业判断将会或合理地可能会受到靠谱的滚球平台对第三方的责任或利益或靠谱的滚球平台自己的财务状况的不利影响”的情况下代理客户, business, property, or personal interests.”
2. Since B will be employed and compensated by the Firm, this situation is different from the common one in which two lawyers in different firms are co-counsel in a case. In such situations, conflicts of one lawyer are not imputed to the other, at least in the absence of an exchange of confidential information. E.g., Richers v. Marsh & McLennon Group Associated, 459 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 1990); Brennan’s Inc. v. Brennan’s Restaurants, Inc., 590 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1979).
3. Rule 7.1 bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer’s services.