Also known as: timely screen · timely screens · timely screening
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural safeguard under which a lawyer subject to personal disqualification is promptly isolated from any involvement in a matter and receives no portion of the fees generated by it. The safeguard prevents imputation of the lawyer's conflict to the entire firm when the lawyer previously obtained confidential information from a prospective client, former client, or government position.
After leaving a federal agency, Theo Thomas joins Titan Industries. Theo possesses confidential government data about Tundra Resources obtained during his public service. Titan Industries accepts representation adverse to Tundra Resources in a related dispute. The firm immediately bars Theo from all files, meetings, and communications concerning the matter and assigns him none of the resulting fees.
Timothy Tang moves from one firm to Thunderbolt Motors after handling a substantially related matter for Twin Rivers Bank. Thunderbolt Motors faces disqualification based on a rebuttable presumption that Timothy received confidential information. The firm implements immediate isolation of Timothy from the matter, excludes him from all fee participation, and provides prompt written notice to Twin Rivers Bank.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The disqualified lawyer must be isolated from participation in the matter as soon as the conflict is identified, before any work begins on the adverse representation. The firm must also ensure the lawyer receives no fee from the matter and provide prompt written notice to affected parties.
Supporting sources
No. Screening must be combined with no fee participation by the disqualified lawyer and, in many jurisdictions, prompt written notice to the prospective client. Without these additional steps, the personal disqualification remains imputed to the firm.
Supporting sources
Screening fails when it is not implemented promptly, when the migrating lawyer continues to participate in the matter, or when the lawyer shares in fees derived from the adverse representation. Courts require effective isolation shown by concrete measures such as file access restrictions and fee allocation.
Supporting sources
No. The screening exception in Rule 1.10(a)(2) applies only when the prohibition stems from Rule 1.9 and a prior firm association. Conflicts arising from concurrent client representations under Rule 1.7 require informed consent from both clients and cannot be cured by screening alone.
Supporting sources