skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Illinois Legal Ethics

1.11   Rule 1.11 Successive Government and Private Employment

1.11:100   Comparative Analysis of Illinois Rule

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 1.11
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

1.11:101      Model Rule Comparison

The IRPC Rule is similar to MR 1.11, slightly modified with respect to the language on knowledge by others in the lawyer's firm, and omitting a provision with respect to law clerks which was felt to be superfluous by the Illinois drafters in light of Rule 1.12.

Note that Illinois, in IRPC 1.10, has defined "screening"; the ABA text, in MR 1.11, simply uses the word without definition. The phrase "appropriate government agency" is question-begging.

Although little of IRPC 1.11 has any parallel in the Illinois Code, Rules 8-101 and 9-101 thereof touched on the same issues.

1.11:102      Model Code Comparison

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

1.11:110      Federal Conflict of Interest Statutes and Regulations

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

1.11:120      Illinois Conflict of Interest Statutes and Regulations

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

1.11:130      Definition of "Matter"

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

1.11:200   Representation of Another Client by Former Government Lawyer

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 1.11
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11(a), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 91:4001, ALI-LGL § 214, Wolfram § 8.10

It is not uncommon for a government lawyer to jump the fence to the private sector. When that happens, conflicts can arise where the lawyer, or her law firm, represents a client whose interests are adverse to those of the lawyer's former client, the People. See People v. Lawson, 644 N.E.2d 1172 (Dec. 1, 1994) (surveying the law in this area). In People v. Lawson, a former assistant State's Attorney who participated in the early portion of the prosecution of a first-degree murder case (e.g., by appearing at the defendant's arraignment) moved to the public defender's office, where he was disqualified from representing the defendant in the same case, although there was no showing by the defendant of an actual or potentially adverse effect on his defense. However, this per se rule of disqualification will not be applied to disqualify a fence-jumping attorney in a criminal matter where the attorney did not personally serve in the same criminal proceeding as both the prosecutor and then as the court-appointed defense counsel. See People v. Lawson, 644 N.E.2d at 1185-86; see also People v. Newberry, 302 N.E.2d 34 (1973) (no material adversity where appointed defense counsel had previously served as head of the criminal division of the State's Attorney's office at time client was indicted). The attorney's new firm will not be disqualified so long as the firm effectively timely screens the attorney from the matter. See People v. Lawson, 644 N.E.2d at 1186 (citing cases which discuss screening procedures).

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

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

1.11:300   Use of Confidential Government Information

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 1.11
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11(b), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 91:4001, ALI-LGL § 214, Wolfram § 8.10

1.11:310      Definition of "Confidential Government Information"

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

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

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 1.11
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11(c), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § , ALI-LGL § 213, 214, Wolfram § 8.9.4

1.11:500   Government Lawyer Negotiating for Private Employment

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 1.11
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.11(c)(2), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 91:4001, ALI-LGL §§ 156, 214, Wolfram § 9.10