Ethics

 This question, reduced to hypothetical format, arose at the Stanford conference. What is the answer now and what should it be?

"Joe is a partner in firm X's office in a state A that does not recognize non-consensual screening of laterals from private practice and has adopted Rule 1.10(a). Sally is a partner in X's office in state B, which does recognize non-consensual screening. Sally used to work at another firm where she represented company QRS. Joe is handling a matter adverse to QRS and substantially related to the work Sally did for QRS at her prior firm. Sally is timely screened in state B. Is Joe conflicted out of opposing QRS in the matter without consent of QRS?  Assume alternatively, the matter is a transactional matter or that it is a litigation in state A, state B, or state C (which either does or does not recognize screening). What SHOULD the rules provide?"

This is a real problem  given the division in US jurisdictions on non-consensual screening. The hypothetical can then be made international as follows:

"Sally is in the London office of the firm and is then representing QRS on a matter that is unrelated to the matter that Joe is handling adverse to QRS. In London, adversity on unrelated matters is allowed. So if Joe were in London, he could be adverse to QRS. But in his home state, it is not allowed. Can Joe oppose QRS without consent in his home state despite Sally's work? Can Sally represent QRS without consent of Joe's client despite Joe's work? Does it depend on whether the matter is litigation or transactional (and if so, how do we defend the distinction)? What SHOULD the rules provide?"