Attorney A represents Client B in a dispute over a commercial lease. Client B is also a client of Attorney C, who practices in a different firm, for an unrelated intellectual property matter. Attorney A learns that Attorney C once briefly represented the opposing party in Client B's commercial lease dispute, Client D, five years ago, in a minor, unrelated contract review. Attorney C has no confidential information relevant to Client B's current lease dispute. Is Attorney A's representation of Client B affected by Attorney C's past representation of Client D?
- ANo, because the matters are unrelated, and Attorney A and Attorney C are in different firms.
- BYes, but only if Client D objects to Attorney A's representation of Client B.
- CYes, because Attorney C's past representation is imputed to Attorney A through their shared client, Client B.
- DNo, unless Attorney C actually possesses confidential information relevant to Client B's current dispute.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. No, because the matters are unrelated, and Attorney A and Attorney C are in different firms.
The imputation rules (Rule 1.10) generally apply to lawyers within the same firm. Attorney A and Attorney C are in different firms. There is no imputation of conflicts between lawyers who merely share a client but are not associated in the same firm. Furthermore, Attorney C's prior representation of Client D was in an unrelated matter and five years ago, and Attorney C has no confidential information relevant to the current dispute, which would typically mean no conflict for Attorney C personally, let alone for Attorney A.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Client D's objection would only be relevant if a conflict did exist, which it does not here.
- C. Imputation does not occur between lawyers in different firms, even if they share a client for different matters.
- D. While the absence of confidential information is a reason Attorney C likely has no conflict, the primary reason Attorney A is unaffected is the lack of imputation between different firms.
No Imputation Between Different Firms
Conflicts of interest for lawyers in separate firms are generally not imputed to each other, even if they share a common client for different, unrelated matters. Imputation rules primarily apply within the same law firm.
- Rule 1.10 governs imputation within a firm.
- Lawyers in different firms are treated as distinct for imputation.
- Sharing a client for unrelated matters does not create imputation.
- Lack of relevant confidential information further negates conflict.
Memory trick: Separate Stacks Stop Shared Stumbles, Success Secures Solos.