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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct
 This rule generally parallels Rule 1.11. The term “personally and substantially” signifies that a judge who was a member of a multimember court, and thereafter left judicial office to practice law, is not prohibited from representing a client in a matter pending in the court, but in which the former judge did not participate. So also the fact that a former judge exercised administrative responsibility in a court does not prevent the former judge from acting as a lawyer in a matter where the judge had previously exercised remote or incidental administrative responsibility that did not affect the merits. Compare the Comment to Rule 1.11. The term “adjudicative officer” includes such officials as judges pro tempore, magistrates, special masters, hearing officers, and other parajudicial officers, and also lawyers who serve as part-time judges. Divisions (B) and (C) of the Compliance provisions of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct provide that a part-time judge or judge pro tempore shall not “act as a lawyer in any proceeding in which he or she has served as a judge or in any other related proceeding.” Although phrased differently from this rule, those rules correspond in meaning.
 Like former judges, lawyers who have served as arbitrators, mediators, or other third-party neutrals may be asked to represent a client in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially. This rule forbids such representation unless all of the parties to the proceedings give their informed consent, confirmed in writing. See Rule 1.0(f) and (b). Other law or codes of ethics governing third-party neutrals may impose more stringent standards of personal or imputed disqualification. Lawyers who serve as mediators and other third-party neutrals also are governed by Rule 2.4.
 Although lawyers who serve as third-party neutrals do not have information concerning the parties that is protected under Rule 1.6, they typically owe the parties an obligation of confidentiality under law or codes of ethics governing third-party neutrals. Thus, division (c) provides that conflicts of the personally disqualified lawyer will be imputed to other lawyers in a law firm unless the conditions of this division are met.
 Requirements for screening procedures are stated in Rule 1.0(l). Division (c)(1) does not prohibit the screened lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share established by prior independent agreement, but that lawyer may not receive compensation directly related to the matter in which the lawyer is disqualified.
 Notice of the screened lawyer’s prior representation and that screening procedures have been employed, generally should be given as soon as practicable after the need for screening becomes apparent. When disclosure is likely to significantly injure the current client, a reasonable delay may be justified.
 By its terms, Rule 1.12(b) prohibits a lawyer from negotiating for employment with a party or lawyer involved in a matter in which the lawyer is presently acting as an adjudicative officer or neutral, during the time that the lawyer has such a role. The lawyer should not negotiate for such employment during the pendency of the matter, regardless of whether the lawyer is active in the matter at the time that the employment opportunity arises, except where the lawyer’s role has completely ended. Thus, a lawyer who, while acting as an independent mediator, attempted to settle a matter that remains pending is not prohibited from negotiating for employment with one of the parties or one of the lawyers in the matter after the mediation has concluded but while the case is still pending. If the lawyer were to be hired, however, Rule 1.12(a) would prohibit the lawyer from being involved in the matter on behalf of a party, and Rule 1.12(c) would effect the disqualification of the rest of the firm, absent effective screening and notice to the other parties and the tribunal.
Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 1.12 addresses the duty of arbitrators, mediators, other third-party neutrals, and former judges to promote public confidence in our legal system and in the legal profession. DR 9-101(A) and (B) prohibit a lawyer from accepting private employment in a matter upon the merits of which the lawyer acted in a judicial capacity or the lawyer had substantial responsibility while the lawyer was a public employee. Because the same potential for misunderstanding exists with respect to lawyers acting as arbitrators or mediators, EC 5-21 recommends that lawyers be prohibited from thereafter representing in the dispute any of the parties involved in the mediation or arbitration. R.C. 2317.02(H) prohibits a mediator from disclosing communications made during the mediation. Rule 1.12 codifies the aspirational goal of EC 5-21, creates a standard for disqualification of a lawyer who “personally and substantially” participated in the same matter while serving as a judge, mediator, arbitrator, or third party neutral, establishes an informed consent standard by which the lawyer may avoid personal disqualification, and provides a process through which the personally disqualified lawyer’s firm may avoid disqualification.
Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.12 is substantively identical to Model Rule 1.12. Comment  has been added to provide further clarification regarding application of the rule.