Attorney P serves as a part-time judge in a municipal court, hearing traffic citations and small claims cases. After two years on the bench, Attorney P resigns and returns to private practice. A few months later, a client, Mr. Q, approaches Attorney P seeking representation in a personal injury lawsuit. The opposing party in this lawsuit, Ms. R, had appeared before Attorney P in municipal court on a minor traffic violation during Attorney P's tenure as a judge. Attorney P remembers Ms. R but has no specific recollection of the details of her traffic case. Is Attorney P ethically permitted to represent Mr. Q?
- ANo, because any prior involvement with a party as a judge creates an unwaivable conflict of interest.
- BYes, because the traffic violation is not the 'same matter' as the personal injury lawsuit.
- CYes, if Attorney P did not participate personally and substantially as a judge in the matter involving Ms. R, and the current matter is unrelated.
- DNo, unless Ms. R provides informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. Yes, because the traffic violation is not the 'same matter' as the personal injury lawsuit.
Rule 1.11(a) deals with former government lawyers and judges. It prohibits a lawyer from representing a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent, confirmed in writing. Here, the 'matter' involving Ms. R as a judge was a minor traffic violation. The current personal injury lawsuit is an entirely different 'matter.' The fact that Attorney P remembers Ms. R is not enough to create a conflict under Rule 1.11, as there is no 'same matter' connection.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This is too broad; the conflict rule for former judges is specific to the 'same matter' they participated in.
- C. The core issue is whether it's the 'same matter.' While 'personally and substantially' is part of the rule, if it's not the same matter, the rule doesn't apply regardless of the level of participation.
- D. Consent would only be required if there was a 'same matter' conflict, which there is not here.
Duties to Former Judges (Same Matter)
A lawyer who has formerly served as a judge shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge, unless all parties give informed consent, confirmed in writing.
- Applies to 'same matter' where lawyer acted as judge.
- Requires 'personally and substantially' participation.
- Prohibition can be waived by informed consent from all parties.
- Does not apply to unrelated matters, even if a party was seen before.
Memory trick: Judges' Judgments Justify Justice, Jurists' Junctions Join Judgments.