Ethics

In the new Kirk v. First American Title case, a California Court of Appeal recognized that screening of a lateral can prevent imputation (or, as California calls it, "vicarious" DQ) of the lateral's disqualification to others at the new firm.  

If you favor lawyer mobility, the good news is that California has approved a screen, but the bad news is that the opinion seems to be limited to a lawyer who didn't actually work on the disputed matter at the prior firm. (The lateral learned the opponent's confidences because he had been approached as a possible consultant.)  If you are a traditionalist, you might be disappointed in the holding, or perhaps happy that it didn't approve screens in the more typical case, where the lateral had actually billed time on the disputed matter.

We'll see how the case is interpreted, but perhaps it will mean that a screen will prevent imputation  in 1.9(b)-type situations, where the lateral's firm worked on the other, the lateral didn't work on the other side herself, but did learn confidences by hearing about the case in the hallway, etc.

Download Kirk