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

rules of professional conduct and other state and federal law to fully understand their
obligations.
Problem
11-7. Martyn & Fox recently hired Julia Davis, a lawyer who worked for the state
attorney general’s office for the past six years. Ms. Davis’s first case in the AG’s office was
the successful defense of a race discrimination class action against the State Department of
Taxation. In her last case, she served as lead counsel in negotiating a settlement in an
antitrust suit on behalf of the State Department of Transportation against General Motors.
(a) Can Martyn & Fox take on the representation of Paula Pearson, who wishes
to bring a race discrimination complaint against the State Department of Taxation
based on events that occurred four years after Ms. Davis’s defense of the department?
(b) Can Martyn & Fox take on the representation of Local Municipality against
General Motors based on facts identical to the State Department of Transportation
case?
E. Adjudicators, Arbitrators, and Mediators Model Rules 1.12, 7.6
Problem
11-8. Grayson, the senior partner at Martyn & Fox, has been mediating a dispute
between Hydrogen Electric and Steel Company over electric rates for the year 2015. He
finished facilitating the participants’ agreement last Tuesday. Now Martyn has been called
by Steel Company to see if the firm will represent Steel Company against Hydrogen
Electric for the year 2016 electric charges. May Martyn take the case?
4. Defendants do not allege that LG worked on the case while she was employed by CM. Defendants also do not
allege that LG revealed any privileged information or client confidences to CM.
5. While LG was working for Morgan, Costello initiated the discussions about her coming to work for him. During
the call Costello learned that LG was apparently dissatisfied with her work at Morgan.
21. In addition to screening, in order for CM to avoid imputation of LG’s conflict CM was required to give prompt
written notice of LG’s employment to defendants. The purpose of the notice is to enable defendants to ensure
compliance with the RPC’s. See RPC 1.10(c)(3). CM did not give this notice. Instead, Morgan first learned about LG’s
side-switching when it saw her name on CM’s letterhead. This apparently occurred shortly after LG joined the firm.
The appropriate course of conduct should have been for CM to notify Morgan before LG started at the firm. This
would have enabled defendants to “ascertain compliance” with RPC 1.10(c) sooner rather than later. . . . If CM had
time to employ LG and add her name to its letterhead, it certainly had the opportunity to notify defendants of LG’s
employment before she started at the firm or contemporaneously therewith. Despite CM’s actions in this regard,
however, the Court does not base CM’s disqualification on its failure to give proper notice pursuant to RPC 1.10(c)(2).
1. MR 1.0(c).
2. MR 5.1, Comment [2].
3. MR 1.8(h), 1.10, 1.11, and 1.12 generally impute the conflict of one lawyer to others in the firm. MR 1.10(a)
360