Ethics

The NJ Supreme Court says that once a former client has shown a prior representation and present adversity, the law firm "bears the burden of going forward to demonstrate that the matters at issue...are not 'substantially related,'" but the former client "retains the burden of persuasion" to show that they are. 

Now, evidence folks know that the burden of going forward (the burden of production) is exceedingly slight. So this opinion gives the former client the burden of proving that existence of a substantial relationship, apparently unaided be presumptions, which are not mentioned in the opinion.

Is this allocation of burden consistent with the rules elsewhere?

The result in the case (no DQ) seems correct but the burden allocation can be dispositive in other matters. 

City of Atlantic City v. Trupos (NJ 2010).