skip navigation

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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.

Arkansas Legal Ethics

1.11   Rule 1.11 Successive Government and Private Employment

1.11:100   Comparative Analysis of Arkansas Rule

1.11:101      Model Rule Comparison

The Arkansas Rule is the same as the Model Rule.

1.11:102      Model Code Comparison

The comparison accepted by the Arkansas Supreme Court is identical to the comparison in the Model Rules.

1.11:110      Federal Conflict of Interest Statutes and Regulations

This topic is not applicable.

1.11:120      Arkansas Conflict of Interest Statutes and Regulations

Act 483 of 1979 establishes ethical standard for state employees. Although the statute is primarily directed toward state purchasing practices and addresses general ethical standards for state employees, some provisions are applicable to attorneys who leave government service and enter private practice. Ar. Code —19-11-709(b) disqualifies a former employee from matters in which he participated personally and substantially as a state employee, and further disqualifies the former employee for one year from matters which fell within his official responsibility. In particular contrast with Rule 1.11 is Ar. Code —19-11-709(c), which also disqualifies partners of employees and former employees who participated personally and substantially in the same matter.

1.11:130      Definition of "Matter"

Arkansas has no case law or authority on this topic.

1.11:200   Representation of Another Client by Former Government Lawyer

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

Arkansas has no case law or authority on this topic. See 1.11:120.

1.11:300   Use of Confidential Government Information

1.11:310      Definition of "Confidential Government Information"

Arkansas has no case law or authority on this topic.

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

An attorney who represented a defendant on a manslaughter conviction was ethically permitted to prosecute the defendant in an unrelated capital felony murder case fourteen years later. Williams v. State, 278 Ark. 9, 642 S.W.2d 887 (1982).

An attorney who had been appointed to represent an indigent defendant withdrew from representation four months later when he accepted a position with the prosecutor's office. Because he was isolated from any involvement in the matter and instructed not to disclose any confidential information, the prosecutor's office was not disqualified from the matter. Drayton v. State, 23 Ark. App. 1, 740 S.W.2d 147 (1987).

While still in law school, a student clerked in a law office representing a man accused of rape. However, the student did not work on the rape case. Upon graduation, the student accepted a job with the local prosecutor's office, which was still handling the rape charges. The defense's motion to disqualify the prosecutor's office and appoint a special prosecutor was denied. Logan v. State, 299 Ark. 266, 773 S.W.2d 413 (1989). Even if the law clerk had obtained confidential information, Comment [9] would have permitted the prosecutor's office to build a ๘Chinese Wall ำaround him.

In State v. Dean Foods Products Co., Inc., 605 F.2d 380 (8th Cir. 1979), an Assistant Attorney General was disqualified in an anti-trust proceeding because he had previously been associated with the defendant's law firm on matters substantially related to the anti-trust allegations. However, under current law, Rule 1.11(c) would disqualify the lawyer only if he had personally and substantially participated in the matter. Further, Comment [9] would not decree the disqualification of the remainder of the attorney-general's office.

1.11:500   Government Lawyer Negotiating for Private Employment

Arkansas has no case law or authority on this topic.