[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

disincentive to a law firm that contemplates hiring an attorney who has formerly
represented an adverse party.” . . .
In sum, the Court finds that Costello and Mains must be disqualified because LG’s
conflict is imputed to the entire firm. Since LG had “primary responsibility” for
AtlantiCare’s defense while she worked at Morgan, screening cannot prevent the conflict
imputation. In addition, even if LG did not have primary responsibility, disqualification is
appropriate because CM did not employ an adequate screening procedure. . . .
Lawrence J. Fox
Legal Tender: A Lawyer’s Guide to Handling Professional Dilemmas
122-125 (ABA 1995)
My Lawyer Switched Sides; Don’t Worry, There’s a Screen
The litigation department breakfasts always seemed to be scheduled for the wrong day
of the week. Just when the key deposition loomed with its 10:00 A.M. start, the chairman
insisted everyone meet at 7:30 in the tired windowless conference room on 13, the one
with the boring duck prints that were always askew. Obligations and self-interest overcame
the need for last-minute deposition preparations. After all, associate reviews were just
around the corner. She wondered, as she raced to be on time, why she had ever bothered to
switch firms. It was true: they weren’t all identical; they were just the same. They made you
feel the same — tired and overworked — and the paycheck was delivered with the same
heavy resentment. They made you feel the same anxiety that you would not meet the firm’s
billable hour “targets,” the euphemism employed by the chair of each firm to describe her
2,200 hour quota. She had to find a better way, she thought, as she slumped resignedly into
the well-worn conference room chair. How many hours had she spent in this room? In
these meetings? Being bored?
Barely listening, she maintained her studied attentive pose, one she had mastered to get
her through those interminable depositions. She would follow her usual rule: make an
attempt at one cogent remark, but otherwise remain silent. Talking at meetings like this
could only hurt her chances for partnership (as if she cared), and no one ever made partner
because of her “performance” at departmental meetings. Wait, look alert, pick your
moment, and then get out as soon as possible.
The conversation turned to privileged documents: something about whether you could
withhold internal corporate memos in document discovery on the grounds of privilege
when they were addressed to multiple executives as well as in-house general counsel. Her
mind wandered back to the practice of one of her clients at the old firm. Suddenly sensing
this anecdotal tidbit as “her” moment, she shared with the assembled group, “When I was
at Bryans & Putnam, one of our clients, City Trust Company, had a bright line rule: so
long as the document had counsel’s name or initials on it anywhere — as writer, addressee,
copied in or later sent the document — they deemed it privileged. It made it real easy to
decide which documents to withhold.”
349