Founders, 887 S.W.2d at 834 (citing Tex. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, Op. 472, 55 Tex. B.J. 520, 521 (1992)). But we suggested that disqualification is required if the firm and nonlawyer fail to ‘‘strictly adhere ” to an effective screening process. Phoenix Founders, 887 S.W.2d at 834 (citing ABA Comm, on Ethics and Profl Responsibility, Informal Op. 1526 (1988)) (emphasis added). A law firm that directs a nonlaw-yer employee to work on a forbidden case and that reasonably should know about the conflict of interest is not strictly adhering to a screening process. When this happens, the threat that confidences will be shared becomes unduly high, and disqualification is required. See Grant, 888 S.W.2d at 467-68. This holding is in line with our previous opinions. See Grant, 888 S.W.2d at 468 (<HOLDING>); Am. Home, 985 S.W.2d at 76 (holding that
holding that plaintiff was otherwise qualified for position where he had worked for defendant employer for approximately twentyeight years holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that disclosure was required where the current employer permitted the paralegal to work on the same litigation she had worked for at her prior firm even after becoming aware that she had previously worked on the case holding that under title vii a temporary employee was employed by both her temp agency and the business at which she worked on a temporary basis holding that admission of one defendants deposition was proper where she was present at the deposition even though she was represented at the time by the same counsel as her codefendants