Quiz-F13-Class14-Annotations

1. Carmen George, widow of Martin George, filed a wrongful death action in Atlanta against the Acme Bicycle Company based on the death of her husband while riding an Acme bicycle. She hired the Sheldon law firm to represent her; Acme hired the Kirk law firm to defend. Ryan Paul was an associate at Kirk and took a deposition at Grady Hospital to review medical records relating to Martin’s fatal accident. Six months later Paul left Kirk and joined Sheldon as an associate. Paul did not notify either Acme or the Kirk law firm about his new employment. Two months after joining the Sheldon firm, Paul along with his supervisor, Maria Gomez, appeared on behalf of George at a routine motion hearing to extend discovery deadlines in the case. [Hint: review BOTH GRPC 1.9(a) and 1.10(a)]

A. Paul is subject to disbarment.

GRPC 1.9(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.... The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbarment. GLE p. 33

B. If Gomez knew that Paul had previously represented Acme in this case, she is subject to disbarment.

GRPC 1.10(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by … Rule 1.9:Former Client GLE p. 36

ü C. Both A and B

D. Neither A nor B

2. Ten days after the motion hearing, Acme filed a motion to disqualify the entire Sheldon law firm from further representation of George. Gomez replied by filing an affidavit that, prior to receiving the disqualification motion, she had not known that Paul had previously represented Acme in the case. The affidavit further states that Paul never conveyed any confidential information to Gomez about Acme that he learned while at the Kirk firm, and that the Sheldon firm has now terminated Paul’s employment. Assuming the affidavit is true, if Gomez continues to represent George, is she subject to disbarment?

A. No, because the termination of Paul removes any possible conflict of interest

B. No, because Gomez acquired no confidential information about Acme

C. Yes, if Paul had told any other lawyer at Sheldon confidential information about Acme
GRPC 1.10(b) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer unless:… any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rule 1.6. GLE p. 36

D. Yes, because the termination of Paul is not relevant

3. Assume that prior to joining the Sheldon firm, Paul has not worked for the Kirk firm, but he knows that his brother, an associate at Kirk, is working on the George case. Paul mentions this fact to Gomez when interviewing for the job but says that his brother has never told him any confidential information about the case. Upon hiring Paul, Gomez notifies her opposing counsel at Kirk, who replies that Acme wants the entire firm to withdraw from further involvement in the case.

ü A. If Paul works on the George case, he is subject to discipline

GRPC 1.8(i) A lawyer related to another lawyer as … sibling … shall not represent a client in a representation directly adverse to a person whom the lawyer has actual knowledge is represented by the other lawyer unless his or her client gives informed consent regarding the relationship. ... GLE p. 30

B. If Gomez continues to work on the George case, she is subject to discipline

GRPC 1.8(i) ...The disqualification stated in this paragraph is personal and is not imputed to members of firms with whom the lawyers are associated. GLE p. 30 See also that GRPC 1.8(i) is not listed in GRPC 1.10(a)

C. Both A and B
D. Neither A nor B

4. Assume that the wrongful death suit was brought against both Acme Bicycle and the City of Atlanta and that Paul had worked on the case, not at the Kirk firm, but as a lawyer at the City Law Department. When Sheldon hired Paul, Gomez proposed to reate a special employment contract with Paul. Gomez can continue to represent Gomez without being subject to possible disbarment if:

GRPC 1.11(a) (a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government entity gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. No lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless …. GLE p. 38

A. The agreement provides that Paul is screened from any participation in the George lawsuit
the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter
B. The agreement provides Paul will receive no portion of any fee earned by the firm from the George lawsuit
and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom
C. Gomez sends copies of the proposed agreement to both her own client (George) and the City one week before Paul is hired
and written notice is duly given to the client and to the appropriate government entity to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.

ü D. All of the above

5. Assume that when Paul applied to work for the Sheldon firm, he told Gomez that he had been involved in George v Acme while at the Kirk firm but did not disclose any further information. As a result, the Sheldon firm created a special employment contract under which Paul was screened from any participation in the case, agreed not to divulge to any member of the Sheldon firm information about the case he had acquired while at Kirk, and further agreed that he would receive no portion of any fee earned by firm in the case. Gomez immediately sent a copy of this agreement to George (her client) and to her opposing counsel at Kirk, who replied that Acme wanted the entire firm to withdraw from further involvement in the case. If Gomez continues to represent George, is she subject to disbarment?

ü A. Yes
Screening provision of GRPC 1.11 do not apply to moves between private law firms

B. No

6. Assume that when Paul applied to work for the Sheldon firm, he told Gomez that he had been involved in George v Acme while at the Kirk firm but did not disclose any further information. Assume further that Georgia has amended GRPC 1.10 so that it is identical to the current ABA Model Rule 1.10. Can Gomez can continue to represent George if the Sheldon firm hires Paul, even over the objections of Acme, without being subject to disbarment? 

A. Yes, as long as Paul is screened from any participation in the George case

B. Yes, as long as Paul receives no portion of any fee earned by the firm in the George case

C. Yes, if both A and B are satisfied

ü D. No, because more than A and B are required to avoid disqualification of the entire firm

See ABA MR 1.10 (a)(2)(ii)&(iii)