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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.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
 A lawyer who has served or is currently serving as a public officer or employee is personally subject to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, including the prohibition against concurrent conflicts of interest stated in Rule 1.7 and provisions regarding former client conflicts contained in Rule 1.9(c). For purposes of Rule 1.9(c), which applies to former government lawyers, the definition of “matter” in division (e) applies. In addition, such a lawyer may be subject to criminal statutes and other government regulations regarding conflict of interest. See R.C. Chapters 102. and 2921. Such statutes and regulations may circumscribe the extent to which and length of time before the government agency may give consent under this rule. See Rule 1.0(f) for the definition of informed consent.
 Divisions (a)(1), (a)(2) and (d)(1) restate the obligations of an individual lawyer who has served or is currently serving as an officer or employee of the government toward a former government or private client. Rule 1.10 is not applicable to the conflicts of interest addressed by this rule. Rather, division (b) sets forth a special imputation rule for former government lawyers that provides for screening and notice. Because of the special problems raised by imputation within a government agency, division (d) does not impute the conflicts of a lawyer currently serving as an officer or employee of the government to other associated government officers or employees, although ordinarily it will be prudent to screen such lawyers.
 Divisions (a)(2) and (d)(2) apply regardless of whether a lawyer is adverse to a former client and are thus designed not only to protect the former client, but also to prevent a lawyer from exploiting public office for the advantage of another client. For example, a lawyer who has pursued a claim on behalf of the government may not pursue the same claim on behalf of a later private client after the lawyer has left government service, except when authorized to do so by the government agency under division (a). Similarly, a lawyer who has pursued a claim on behalf of a private client may not pursue the claim on behalf of the government, except when authorized to do so by division (d). As with divisions (a)(1) and (d)(1), Rule 1.10 is not applicable to the conflicts of interest addressed by these paragraphs.
 This rule represents a balancing of interests. On the one hand, where the successive clients are a government agency and another client, public or private, the risk exists that power or discretion vested in that agency might be used for the special benefit of the other client. A lawyer should not be in a position where benefit to the other client might affect performance of the lawyer’s professional functions on behalf of the government. Also, unfair advantage could accrue to the other client by reason of access to confidential government information about the client’s adversary obtainable only through the lawyer’s government service. On the other hand, the rules governing lawyers presently or formerly employed by a government agency should not be so restrictive as to inhibit transfer of employment to and from the government. The government has a legitimate need to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. Thus a former government lawyer is disqualified only from particular matters in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially. The provisions for screening and waiver in division (b) are necessary to prevent the disqualification rule from imposing too severe a deterrent against entering public service.
 When a lawyer has been employed by one government agency and then moves to a second government agency, it may be appropriate to treat that second agency as another client for purposes of this rule, as when a lawyer is employed by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency. However, because the conflict of interest is governed by division (d), the latter agency is not required to screen the lawyer as division (b) requires a law firm to do. The question of whether two government agencies should be regarded as the same or different clients for conflict of interest purposes is beyond the scope of these rules. See Rule 1.13, Comment .
 Divisions (b) and (c) contemplate a screening arrangement. See Rule 1.0(k) (requirements for screening procedures). These paragraphs do not prohibit a lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share established by prior independent agreement, but that lawyer may not receive compensation directly relating the lawyer’s compensation to the fee in 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.
 Division (c) operates only when the lawyer in question has knowledge of the information, which means actual knowledge; it does not operate with respect to information that merely could be imputed to the lawyer. See R.C. 102.03(B).
 Divisions (a) and (d) do not prohibit a lawyer from jointly representing a private party and a government agency when doing so is permitted by Rule 1.7 and is not otherwise prohibited by law.
 For purposes of division (e) of this rule, a “matter” may continue in another form. In determining whether two particular matters are the same, the lawyer should consider the extent to which the matters involve the same basic facts, the same or related parties, and the time elapsed.
Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 1.11 spells out special conflict of interest rules for lawyers who are current or former government employees. The movement of lawyers from public service and practice to private practice and involvement in the same or similar issues and controversies requires rules that expressly spell out when a conflict exists that prevents representation or permits such representation if certain conditions are met, including screening where appropriate. The rule likewise governs the conduct of lawyers moving from private practice into the public sector. DR 9-101(B) includes only a broad prohibition forbidding a lawyer from accepting private employment in a matter in which he or she had substantial responsibility while a public employee. This prohibition is based on avoiding the appearance of impropriety and gives no specific guidance to former government lawyers.
Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.11 reflects the Model Rule except for minor changes. The rule makes clear that a lawyer subject to these special rules on conflicts shall comply with all the conditions set forth in Rule 1.11(a), (b), and (d). Also division (a)(1) requires compliance with all applicable laws and Rule 1.9(c) regarding conflicts of interest. This includes provisions of the Ohio Ethics Law contained in R.C. Chapters 102. and 2921. as well as the regulations of the Ohio Ethics Commission. These statutes and regulations include specific definitions of a prohibited conflict of interest and language forbidding the same for present and former government employees.