to the present case, ‘the court will irrebuttably presume that relevant confidential information was disclosed during the former period of representation.’ ” In re American, 972 F.2d at 614. III.D. The Confidential Information Wilson is Presumed to have had Disclosed to her while at Forman Perry is Imputed to the Gibson Law Firm The effect of this finding is that Wilson’s work at Forman Perry not only places her squarely within the language of Rule 1.9(a), but also within the language of Rule 1.6. That is because if a district court finds a matter to be substantially related under Rule 1.9(a), it must irrebuttably presume that confidential information, as protected by Rule 1.6, was disclosed during the former period of representation. This, in turn, brings about the application .1999) (<HOLDING>); []; Glover Bottled Gas Corp. v. Circle M
holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence there is therefore much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence the exclusionary rules aside from rules of privilege should not be applicable and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel holding rules of procedure interpreted in same manner as statutes holding that under the applicable rules regulating the florida bar which are similar to the krpc nonlawyers must be treated in the same manner as lawyers when considering issues of confidentiality and disqualification holding that the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements