1061
|
| A lawyer represented a client in successfully obtaining a certificate of need for a facility. Two years later, the lawyer represented another client in filing for a certificate of need for the same type of facility nearby. At the same time, the first client (although not represented by the same lawyer) sought a certificate of need for a facility that would compete with the second client's proposed facility.The Bar held that the lawyer had no conflict, because (1) the lawyer's former and current representations are not substantially related; and (2) the lawyer claims not to have acquired any confidential information from the first client. The Bar added that the first client had not consented to the lawyer's representation, even though it knowingly acquiesced in it for over five months before objecting [this LEO was reaffirmed in LEO 1065.] |