Also known as:Model Rule 1.11 · ABA MR 1.11 · Rule 1.11 · MRPC 1.11
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A Model Rule of Professional Conduct that sets out the conflict-of-interest rules applicable to lawyers who have served as public officers or employees of the government. The rule disqualifies a former government lawyer from representing a private client in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially unless the appropriate government agency gives informed consent confirmed in writing. When the former government lawyer is disqualified, the rule permits the lawyer's new firm to avoid imputation by timely screening the lawyer from the matter, apportioning the lawyer no part of the fee, and giving prompt written notice to the government agency.
See Our Sources· 1 primary source
Model Codes
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Former Government Lawyer Joins Defense Firm
Maurice Marshall spent four years as a compliance attorney at the County of Baker National Sports Commission, personally directing investigations into salary-cap practices. After resigning, Maurice joined Sterling Peak, a twelve-lawyer firm. Two months later Black Peak retained Sterling Peak to defend it in a civil enforcement action brought by the County of Baker alleging the identical salary-cap practices. Sterling Peak implemented a timely screen isolating Maurice from all files and fee apportionment and gave prompt written notice to the County of Baker. Because Maurice's prior employment was with a government agency, the question whether his conflict is imputed to the firm is governed by the special provisions of this rule rather than ordinary imputation principles.
Screening After Government Service
Marcus Mitchell worked for six years at the Social Security Administration reviewing pharmaceutical companies' applications for Medicare drug coverage. After leaving the SSA, Marcus joined Southern Pharmaceuticals, a firm that represents life-sciences clients. Ridge Pharmaceuticals, whose drug application Marcus had reviewed, asked Southern Pharmaceuticals to defend it in a products-liability suit involving that same drug. Southern Pharmaceuticals proposed to screen Marcus from the matter while allowing other partners to handle the representation. The screening and notice procedures satisfy the requirements that prevent imputation of Marcus's conflict to the entire firm.
5 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
When does a former government lawyer's conflict get imputed to the new firm?
The disqualification of lawyers associated in a firm with former or current government lawyers is governed by this rule rather than ordinary imputation principles. The rule permits the firm to avoid imputation if the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from participation in the matter, receives no part of the fee, and prompt written notice is given to the government agency.
What constitutes personal and substantial participation under the rule?
A former government lawyer is disqualified if the lawyer participated personally and substantially in the same matter while serving as a public officer or employee. Direct supervision of an investigation, drafting enforcement complaints, or contributing to regulatory letters that address the precise issues now in litigation all qualify as personal and substantial participation.
Supporting sources
When must screening be implemented to prevent imputation?
Screening must be timely. Participation in the initial client intake meeting or receipt of confidential documents before any screening measures are put in place renders the screen untimely even if an ethical wall is later erected and notice is provided.
Supporting sources
Does the rule require physical barriers or separate practice groups for effective screening?
The rule does not mandate physical separation as a prerequisite. Formal screening procedures that isolate the lawyer from files, fee apportionment, and discussions, together with prompt written notice to the government agency, satisfy the rule even when the lawyer's office is on the same floor as the litigation team.
Supporting sources
What policy goals does the rule advance?
The rule balances the need to protect confidential government information with the public interest in encouraging lawyers to enter government service without permanent career penalties. It facilitates the flow of talent between public and private sectors while safeguarding sensitive information through tailored screening and notice procedures.