Rule 1.10 - IMPUTATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; SCREENING(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer or on Rule 1.7(a)(3) and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.(b) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm, unless:(1) the matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and(2) any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter.(c) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, no lawyer associated in the firm shall knowingly represent a person in a matter in which that lawyer is disqualified under Rule 1.9, unless the personally disqualified lawyer is promptly screened from any form of participation or representation in the matter and written notice of the screening procedures employed is promptly given to any affected former client.(d) A disqualification prescribed by this rule may be waived by the affected clients under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.(e) The disqualification of lawyers associated in a firm with former or current government lawyers is governed by Rule 1.11.Or. State. Bar. R. Regul. and Polic. 1.10
Adopted 1/1/2005; Amended 12/1/2006: Paragraph (a) amended to include reference to Rule 1.7(a)(3). Amended 1/1/2014: Paragraph (c) revised to eliminate detailed screening requirements and to require notice to the affected client rather than the lawyer's former firm.Defined Terms (see Rule 1.0):
"Firm"
"Know"
"Knowingly"
"Law firm"
"Matter"
"Screened"
"Substantial"
Comparison to Oregon Code
Paragraph (a) is similar to the vicarious disqualification provisions of DR 5-105(G), except that it does not apply when the disqualification is based only on a "personal interest" of the disqualified lawyer that will not limit the ability of the other lawyers in the firm to represent the client.
Paragraph (b) is substantially the same as DR 5-105(J).
Paragraph (d) is similar to DR 5-105 in allowing clients to consent to what would otherwise be imputed conflicts.
Paragraph (e) has no counterpart in the Oregon Code because the Oregon Code does not have a special rule addressing government lawyer conflicts.
The title was changed to include "Screening."