Rule 1.10(b), as Rule 1.10(b) explicitly incorporates Rule 1.6. As noted above, Rule 10(b) deals with the imputation of the conflict of one lawyer of a firm to the rest of the firm. Rule 1.10(b) explicitly states that “[w]hen a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, the firm may not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that lawyer, or a firm with which the lawyer was associated, had previously represented a client whose interests are materially adverse to that person and about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(b) that is material to the matter.” As is apparent from the text of Rule 1.10(b), it does not explicitly refer to a paralegal, and how the conflict of a paralega 41, 14[5], 876 P.2d 1176 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Koulisis v. Rivers, 730 So.2d 289, 291
holding that correspondence between counsel cannot suffice as a rule 34 request that may be compelled through rule 37 holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding that individual rights under the flsa may not be waived through agreement holding that ethical rule er 110b may be extended to the conduct of nonlawyers through er 53