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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Pennsylvania Legal Ethics

1.10   Rule 1.10 Imputed Disqualification: General Rule

1.10:100   Comparative Analysis of Pennsylvania Rule

Primary Pennsylvania References: PA Rule 1.10
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.10, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

1.10:101      Model Rule Comparison

Pennsylvania did not reformulate and move Rule 1.10(b) to Rule 1.9(b), as was the case with the Model Rules via amendment in 1989. PA-R 1.10 therefore still consists of sections a-d while MR 1.10 consists of sections a-c. PA-R 1.10(a), (c) and (d) are identical to MR 1.10(a), (b) and (c), respectively. PA-R 1.10(b), however, is notably distinct from MR 1.9(b). While the focus of MR 1.9(b) is the lawyer who has changed firms, the focus of PA-R 1.10(b) is the firm that has acquired a new lawyer. MR 1.9(b) prohibits a lawyer from representing interests adverse to those of a client represented by the lawyer's former firm in a substantially related matter if the lawyer acquired information material to the matter. PA-R 1.10(b), in contrast, prohibits a firm from representing a client whose interests are materially adverse to a former client of the lawyer's or the lawyer's former firm in a substantially related matter if the lawyer acquired material information about the matter -- unless the lawyer is screened and notice is given to the former client.

1.10:102      Model Code Comparison

DR 5-105 provides a counterpart to Rule 1.10, stating that "no partner, associate or any other lawyer affiliated" with a lawyer disqualified from a particular employment "may accept or continue" that employment.

1.10.103      Definition of "Firm"

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

1.10:200   Imputed Disqualification Among Current Affiliated Lawyers

Primary Pennsylvania References: PA Rule 1.10(a)
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.10(a), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA 51:2001, ALI-LGL 203, Wolfram 7.6

1.10:300   Removing Imputation by Screening

Primary Pennsylvania References: PA Rule 1.10
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.10, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA 51:2001, ALI-LGL 204, Wolfram 7.6

1.10:400   Disqualification of Firm After Disqualified Lawyer Departs

Primary Pennsylvania References: PA Rule 1.10(c)
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.10(b), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA 51:2008, ALI-LGL 204, Wolfram 7.6.3

1.10:500   Client Consent

Primary Pennsylvania References: PA Rule 1.10(d)
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.10(c), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA 51:2001, ALI-LGL 202, Wolfram 7.2, 7.3