Tex. Disc. R. Prof. Cond. 1.10
Comment:
Principles of Imputed Disqualification
1. Paragraph (a)'s rule of imputed disqualification gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client as it applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Paragraph (a) is premised on the idea that a firm of lawyers is essentially one lawyer for purposes of client loyalty and that a lawyer is vicariously bound by the obligation of loyalty owed by the other lawyers with whom the lawyer is associated. Paragraph (a)(1) operates only among the lawyers currently associated in a firm. When a lawyer moves from one firm to another, the situation is governed by Rules 1.09(b), 1.10(a)(2), and 1.10(b).
2. Paragraph (a) does not prohibit representation when client loyalty or protection of confidential information are not at issue. For example, if one lawyer in a firm could not effectively represent a given client because of strong political beliefs, but that lawyer will not work on the case and that lawyer's personal beliefs will not materially limit the representation by others in the firm, the firm should not be disqualified. On the other hand, if one lawyer in a law firm owns a party adverse to the law firm's client in a case, and others in the firm would be materially limited in their representation because of loyalty to that lawyer, the lawyer's personal disqualification would be imputed to all others in the firm.
3. Paragraph (a) also does not prohibit representation by others in the law firm if the person prohibited from involvement in a matter is a nonlawyer, such as a paralegal or legal secretary. Nor does paragraph (a) prohibit representation by others in the law firm if a lawyer is prohibited from involvement in a matter because of events that took place before that person became a lawyer, for example, work performed as a law student.
4. Paragraph (b) applies regardless of when the formerly associated lawyer represented the client.
5. Paragraph (c) removes imputation with the informed consent of the affected client or former client under the conditions stated in Rule 1.06.
6. Paragraph (a)(2) similarly removes imputation, but, unlike paragraph (c), it does so without requiring that there be informed consent by the former client. Instead, it requires that the procedures laid out in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)-(ii) be followed. Lawyers should be aware, however, that, even where screening mechanisms have been adopted, tribunals may consider additional factors in ruling upon motions to disqualify a lawyer from pending litigation.
7. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) does not prohibit the screened lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share established by prior independent agreement.
8. The notice required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is intended to enable the former client to evaluate and comment upon the effectiveness of the screening procedures.
9. If a lawyer joins a private firm after representing the government, imputation is governed by Rule 1.11, not this Rule.
10. If a lawyer is prohibited from engaging in certain transactions under Rule 1.08, then Rule 1.08(i), not this Rule, determines whether that prohibition also applies to other lawyers associated with the personally prohibited lawyer's firm.