Attorney Andy has been employed as an assistant prosecutor in the district attorney’s office during the time that an investigation of Defendant Davidson was being conducted by that office. Attorney Andy took no part in the investigation and had no knowledge of the facts other than those disclosed in the press. Two months ago, Andy left the D.A.’s office and formed a partnership with Attorney Bill. Last week, Davidson was indicted for offenses allegedly disclosed by the prior investigation. Davidson asked Andy to represent him. Andy declined to do so, but suggested Bill. Is Bill subject to discipline if he represents Davidson?
A. Yes, because Attorney Andy was employed in the district attorney’s office while the investigation of Defendant Davidson was being conducted.
B. Yes, unless the district attorney’s office is promptly notified and consents to the representation.
C. No, unless Attorney Andy participates in the representation or shares in the fee.
D. No, because Attorney Andy had no responsibility for or knowledge of the facts of the investigation of Defendant Davidson.
Answer:D
Attorney Andy has been employed as an assistant prosecutor in the district attorney’s office during the time that an investigation of Defendant Davidson was being conducted by that office. Attorney Andy took no part in the investigation and had no knowledge of the facts other than those disclosed in the press. Two months ago, Andy left the D.A.’s office and formed a partnership with Attorney Bill. Last week, Davidson was indicted for offenses allegedly disclosed by the prior investigation. Davidson asked Andy to represent him. Andy declined to do so, but suggested Bill. Is Bill subject to discipline if he represents Davidson?
A. Yes, because Attorney Andy was employed in the district attorney’s office while the investigation of Defendant Davidson was being conducted. B. Yes, unless the district attorney’s office is promptly notified and consents to the representation. C. No, unless Attorney Andy participates in the representation or shares in the fee. D. No, because Attorney Andy had no responsibility for or knowledge of the facts of the investigation of Defendant Davidson.
Explanation: This is a government conflicts problem. Under Rule 1.11(a), a former government lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter in which the lawyer “participated personally and substantially” while a government lawyer. Here, Attorney Andy did not personally and substantially participate in the investigation of Defendant Davidson. Andy “took no part in the investigation.” Accordingly, Andy does not have any conflict, so no conflict is imputed to his partner Bill.