851. P.2d at 500. We believe that a more flexible, case-by-case approach enables a trial court to protect a criminal defendant from the due process concern at issue — the disclosure of confidences revealed to his attorney during the attorney-client relationship— while avoiding unnecessary disqualifications and other disruptive effects that a per se rule would have on Commonwealth’s Attorney’s offices. We are mindful of the opinion of the Virginia State Bar’s Standing Committee on Legal Ethics and Unauthorized Practice of Law that holds that “chínese walls” or other screening procedures do not cure imputed conflicts within a Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. See Virginia State Bar Standing Committee on Legal Ethics and Unauthorized Practice of Law, Opinion No. 1020 (Jan. 21, 1988) (<HOLDING>). While we agree that an ethical rule that
holding that a minimum fee schedule enforced by the virginia state bar did not fall within the parker exception because the fee schedule was not mandated by the virginia supreme court and thus it could not fairly be said that the state of virginia through its supreme court rules required the anticompetitive activities recognizing that  the virginia supreme court has consistently applied the one year statute of limitation  to defamation actions  holding that title ii does not apply to the states holding that the plan for erecting a chinese wall within a commonwealths attorneys office does not eliminate any potential imputed conflicts arising under rules of the supreme court of virginia pt 6  ii dr 5105 holding that when a statute directly and irreconcilably conflicts with a supreme court rule on a matter within the courts authority the rule prevails