1613
|
| An associate who worked on an antitrust case for three months before leaving a firm had obtained information from the client's co-defendants. Although there was no attorney-client relationship between the lawyer and the co-defendants, the information the associate gained from the co-defendants "is also construed to be protected as a secret of the client/defendant since it was gained in the professional relationship, was apparently intended by the client to remain confidential, and ... the interests of the co-defendants is parallel to the interest of the client/defendant." The Bar held that the associate would have to keep this information secret.In discussing whether the associate could now work for a governmental agency in an arguably related antitrust matter, the Bar noted that the Bar "would find not substantially related any anti-trust enforcement which did not involve either the same relevant facts necessary to prove a violation, the same parties (the same co-defendants), or the same subject matter (anti-trust)."The rule prohibiting adversity to a former client on the same or substantially related matters has no time limit. Because there was no attorney-client relationship between the associate and the co-defendants, the Bar held that the imputed disqualification rules possibly applicable to the government agency are "inapposite." [The Bar did not indicate whether the former associate could be involved in substantially related anti-trust enforcement matters with the former client's consent only, or whether the associate must also obtain the co-defendants' consents.] |