Connecticut Legal Ethics

1.11 Rule 1.11 Successive Government and Private Employment

1.11:100 Comparative Analysis of Connecticut Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.11
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

1.11:101 Model Rule Comparison

Conn. Rule 1.11 is identical to Model Rule 1.11, apart from one difference: Section (c)(2) of the Model Rule provides an exception whereby Ëa lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative officer or arbitrator may negotiate for private employment as permitted by Rule 1.12(b) and subject to the conditions stated in Rule 1.12(b),Ó which Conn. Rule 1.11 does not provide.

1.11:102 Model Code Comparison

Paragraph (a) is similar to DR-9-101(B), except that the latter used the terms Ëin which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public employee.Ó Paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) had no counterparts in the Model Code.

1.11:110 Federal Conflict of Interest Statutes and Regulations

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

1.11:120 Connecticut Conflict of Interest Statutes and Regulations

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

1.11:130 Definition of "Matter"

Informal Opinion 89-7 (1989) opined that an attorney who was previously a town employee and had frequent contact with the Planning and Zoning Commission was prohibited from representing a developer in any matters, even those that did not necessitate the attorneyÁs appearance before any board or agency. The Committee interpreted the rule as Ëbroadly prescriptive of any representation in the circumstances involved.Ó

1.11:200 Representation of Another Client by Former Government Lawyer

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.11(a)
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11(a), Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

In Tzepos v. City of Waterbury, No. 0109550, 1992 WL 280735, *1 (Conn. Super. Oct. 6, 1992), the court held that Conn. Rule 1.11 did not require the disqualification of plaintiffÁs attorney in plaintiffÁs tax appeal against defendant. PlaintiffÁs attorney had been a member of the Corporation CounselÁs office representing the defendant in tax appeals at the time the assessment in question was made. The court found that there was no evidence that this assessment or any confidential information concerning this assessment was ever discussed by any city officials with the Corporation CounselÁs office while plaintiffÁs attorney was employed there.

1.11:210 No Imputation to Firm if Former Government Lawyer Is Screened

There appear to be no pertinent Connecticut court decisions or ethics opinions on this subject.

1.11:300 Use of Confidential Government Information

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.11(b)
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11(b), Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

There appear to be no pertinent Connecticut court decisions or ethics opinions on this subject.

1.11:310 Definition of "Confidential Government Information"

There appear to be no pertinent Connecticut court decisions or ethics opinions on this subject.

1.11:400 Government Lawyer Participation in Matters Related to Prior Representation

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.11(c)
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11(c), Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

Informal Opinion 89-7 (1989) concerned a person who performed government service prior to admission to the bar. The Committee on Professional Ethics opined that since Conn. Rule 1.11 applied here, the attorney was not permitted to represent a developer in any matters because of his previously-held position as director of economic development and frequent meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

1.11:500 Government Lawyer Negotiating for Private Employment

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.11(c)(2)
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11(c)(2), Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

There appear to be no pertinent Connecticut court decisions or ethics opinions on this subject.