RULE 1.9
                        DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS


  (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 client gives informed
consent, confirmed in writing.

  (b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a
substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer
formerly was associated had previously represented a client

     (1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

     (2)  about  whom that lawyer had acquired information protected by
Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former
client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

  (c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or
whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter
shall not thereafter:

     (1) use information relating to the representation to the
disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit  or
require with respect to a client, or when the information has become
generally known; or

     (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these
Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Comment

  [1] After termination of a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer has
certain continuing duties with respect to confidentiality and conflicts of
interest and thus may not represent another client except in conformity
with this Rule. Under this Rule, for example, a lawyer could not properly
seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on behalf of
the former client. So also a lawyer who has prosecuted an accused person
could not properly represent the accused in a subsequent civil action
against the government concerning the same transaction. Nor could a lawyer
who has represented multiple clients in a matter represent one of the
clients against the others in the same or a substantially related matter
after a dispute arose among the clients in that matter, unless all
affected clients give informed consent. See Comment [9]. Current and
former government lawyers must comply with this Rule to the extent
required by Rule 1.11.

  [2] The scope of a "matter" for purposes of this Rule depends on the
facts of a particular situation or transaction. The lawyer's involvement
in a matter can also be a question of degree. When a lawyer has been
directly involved in a specific transaction, subsequent representation of
other clients with materially adverse interests in that transaction
clearly is prohibited. On the other hand, a lawyer who recurrently handled
a type of problem for a former client is not precluded from later
representing another client in a factually distinct problem of that type
even though the subsequent representation involves a position adverse to
the prior client. Similar considerations can apply to the reassignment of
military lawyers between defense and prosecution functions within the same
military jurisdictions. The underlying question is whether the lawyer was
so involved in the matter that the subsequent representation can be justly
regarded as a changing of sides in the matter in question.

  [3] Matters are "substantially related" for purposes of this Rule if
they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if there otherwise
is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would
normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially
advance the client's position in the subsequent matter. For example, a
lawyer who has represented a businessperson and learned extensive private
financial information about that person may not then represent that
person's spouse in seeking a divorce. Similarly, a lawyer who has
previously represented a client in securing environmental permits to build
a shopping center would be precluded from representing neighbors seeking
to oppose rezoning of the property on the basis of environmental
considerations; however, the lawyer would not be precluded, on the grounds
of substantial relationship, from defending a tenant of the completed
shopping center in resisting eviction for nonpayment of rent. Information
that has been disclosed to the public or to other parties adverse to the
former client ordinarily will not be disqualifying. Information acquired
in a prior representation may have been rendered obsolete by the passage
of time, a circumstance that may be relevant in determining whether two
representations are substantially related. In the case of an
organizational client, general knowledge of the client's policies and
practices ordinarily will not preclude a subsequent representation; on the
other hand, knowledge of specific facts gained in a prior representation
that are relevant to the matter in question ordinarily will preclude such
a representation. A former client is not required to reveal the
confidential information learned by the lawyer in order to establish a
substantial risk that the lawyer has confidential information to use in
the subsequent matter. A conclusion about the possession of such
information may be based on the nature of the services the lawyer provided
the former client and information that would in ordinary practice be
learned by a lawyer providing such services.

Lawyers Moving Between Firms

  [4] When lawyers have been associated within a firm but then end their
association, the question of whether a lawyer should undertake
representation is more complicated. There are several competing
considerations. First, the client previously represented by the former
firm must be reasonably assured that the principle of loyalty to the
client is not compromised. Second, the rule should not be so broadly cast
as to preclude other persons from having reasonable choice of legal
counsel. Third, the rule should not unreasonably hamper lawyers from
forming new associations and taking on new clients after having left a
previous association. In this connection, it should be recognized that
today many lawyers practice in firms, that many lawyers to some degree
limit their practice to one field or another, and that many move from one
association to another several times in their careers. If the concept of
imputation were applied with unqualified rigor, the result would be
radical curtailment of the opportunity of lawyers to move from one
practice setting to another and of the opportunity of clients to change counsel.

  [5] [Washington revision] Paragraph (b) operates to disqualify the
lawyer only when the lawyer involved has actual knowledge of information
protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c). Thus, if a lawyer while with one firm
acquired no knowledge or information relating to a particular client of
the firm, and that lawyer later joined another firm, neither the lawyer
individually nor the second firm is disqualified from representing another
client in the same or a related matter even though the interests of the
two clients conflict. See Rule 1.10(e) and (b) for the restrictions on a
firm when a lawyer initiates an association with the firm or has
terminated an association with the firm.

  [6] Application of paragraph (b) depends on a situation's particular
facts, aided by inferences, deductions or working presumptions that
reasonably may be made about the way in which lawyers work together. A
lawyer may have general access to files of all clients of a law firm and
may regularly participate in discussions of their affairs; it should be
inferred that such a lawyer in fact is privy to all information about all
the firm's clients. In contrast, another lawyer may have access to the
files of only a limited number of clients and participate in discussions
of the affairs of no other clients; in the absence of information to the
contrary, it should be inferred that such a lawyer in fact is privy to
information about the clients actually served but not those of other
clients. In such an inquiry, the burden of proof should rest upon the firm
whose disqualification is sought.

  [7] Independent of the question of disqualification of a firm, a lawyer
changing professional association has a continuing duty to preserve
confidentiality of information about a client formerly represented.
See Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c).

  [8] Paragraph (c) provides that information acquired by the lawyer in
the course of representing a client may not subsequently be used or
revealed by the lawyer to the disadvantage of the client. However, the
fact that a lawyer has once served a client does not preclude the lawyer
from using generally known information about that client when later
representing another client.

  [9] [Washington revision] The provisions of this Rule are for the
protection of former clients and can be waived if the client gives
informed consent, which consent must be confirmed in writing under
paragraphs (a) and (b). See Rule 1.0(e). With regard to disqualification
of a firm with which a lawyer is or was formerly associated, see Rule 1.10.


[Amended effective September 1, 2006.]