might or might not impute to members of a firm. Neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Supreme Court of Mississippi has addressed how Rule 1.10(b) might apply to non-lawyer employees. Other courts, as noted by Defendants, have held that local rules which are similar or identical to Rule 1.10(b) apply to non-lawyer employees. In Zimmerman [v. Mahaska Bottling Co., 270 Kan. 810, 815-17, 19 P.3d 784, 788-90 (2001) ], the Kansas Supreme Court held that the [Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct] applied not only to attorneys, but also to nonlawyer employees. Id. at 790[] (citing Daines v. Alcatel, S.A., 194 F.R.D. 678, 681 (E.D.Wash.2000)) (using Washington Rules of Professional Conduct [WRPC] 5.3 to apply WRPC 1.10 to nonlawyer employees); Makita Corp. v. U.S., 819 F.Supp. 1099, 1104 (CIT 1993) (<HOLDING>); Smart Industries v. Superior Court, 179 Ariz.
holding that model rule 53 requires courts to apply the same ethical standards to nonlawyer employees holding that two prior complaints and the testimony from two witnesses who were injured by the same model meat grinder were admissible to rebut the notion that defendant had no notice of a defective condition of the grinder model at issue holding same holding that the same evidentiary standards apply postbooker holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act