Ethics

As many of you know, the ABA House of Delegates recently amended Model Rule 1.10.  The stated goal was to permit screening of laterally hired attorneys in order to prevent the imputation of a conflict of interest.  The problem, as we previously described in this post, is that the amendment as written arguably permits screening in all circumstances, not just when a lateral attorney is hired. 

The ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently asked the Rules and Calendar Committee to adopt a housekeeping amendment to Rule 1.10 that would have made it clear that the screening provision applies only to laterally hired attorneys.  I am told that Rules and Calendar Committee rejected that request.

At this point, there appear to be two options.  First, this issue can return to the ABA's House of Delegates in August, where the correction can be formally adopted by the House.  Second, the ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility could issue a formal opinion that provides the proper (and narrower) interpretation of the Rule.  In the meantime, the Model Rule as written appears to permit screening in far more situations than the drafters intended. 

We'll post more details when we get them.