RULE 1.11
   SPECIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR FORMER AND CURRENT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
                               AND EMPLOYEES


  (a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer who has
formerly served as a  public officer or employees of the government:

     (1)  is subject to Rule 1.9(c); and

     (2) shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter
in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public
officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its
informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation.

  (b) When a lawyer is disqualified from representation under paragraph
(a), no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly
undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless:

    (1) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation
in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and

    (2) written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government
agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.

  (c) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer having
information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information
about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee,
may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that
person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material
disadvantage of that person. As used in this Rule the term "confidential
government information" means information that has been obtained under
governmental authority and which, at the time this Rule is applied, the
government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a
legal privilege not to disclose and which is not otherwise available to the
public. A firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or
continue representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is
timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no
part of the fee therefrom.

  (d) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer currently
serving as a public officer or employee:

     (1) is subject to Rules 1.7 and 1.9; and

     (2) shall not:

        (i) participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated
personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernmental
employment, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed
consent, confirmed writing; or

        (ii) negotiate for private employment with any person who is
involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the
lawyer is participating personally and substantially, except that a lawyer
serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative officer or arbitrator
may negotiate for private employment as permitted by Rule 1.12(b) and
subject to the conditions stated in Rule 1.12(b).

  (e) As used in this Rule, the term "matter" includes:

     (1) any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a
ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation,
charge, accusation, arrest or other particular matter involving a specific
party or parties; and

     (2) any other matter covered by the conflict of interest rules of the
appropriate government agency.

Comment

  [1] A lawyer who has served or is currently serving as a public officer
or employee is personally subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct,
including the prohibition against concurrent conflicts of interest stated
in Rule 1.7. In addition, such a lawyer may be subject to statutes and
government regulations regarding conflict of interest. Such statutes and
regulations may circumscribe the extent to which the government agency may
give consent under this Rule. See Rule 1.0(e) for the definition of informed consent.

  [2] Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (d)(1) restate the obligations of an
individual lawyer who has served or is currently serving as an officer or
employee of the government toward a former government or private client.
Rule 1.10 is not applicable to the conflicts of interest addressed by this
Rule. Rather, paragraph (b) sets forth a special imputation rule for former
government lawyers that provides for screening and notice. Because of the
special problems raised by imputation within a government agency, paragraph
(d) does not impute the conflicts of a lawyer currently serving as an
officer or employee of the government to other associated government
officers or employees, although ordinarily it will be prudent to screen such lawyers.

  [3] Paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(2) apply regardless of whether a lawyer is
adverse to a former client and are thus designed not only to protect the
former client, but also to prevent a lawyer from exploiting public office
for the advantage of another client. For example, a lawyer who has pursued
a claim on behalf of the government may not pursue the same claim on behalf
of a later private client after the lawyer has left government service,
except when authorized to do so by the government agency under paragraph
(a). Similarly, a lawyer who has pursued a claim on behalf of a private
client may not pursue the claim on behalf of the government, except when
authorized to do so by paragraph (d). As with paragraphs (a)(1) and (d)(1),
Rule 1.10 is not applicable to the conflicts of interest addressed by these paragraphs.

  [4] This Rule represents a balancing of interests. On the one hand,
where the successive clients are a government agency and another client,
public or private, the risk exists that power or discretion vested in that
agency might be used for the special benefit of the other client. A lawyer
should not be in a position where benefit to the other client might affect
performance of the lawyer's professional functions on behalf of the
government. Also, unfair advantage could accrue to the other client by
reason of access to confidential government information about the client's
adversary obtainable only through the lawyer's government service. On the
other hand, the rules governing lawyers presently or formerly employed by a
government agency should not be so restrictive as to inhibit transfer of
employment to and from the government. The government has a legitimate need
to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards.
Thus a former government lawyer is disqualified only from particular
matters in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially. The
provisions for screening and waiver in paragraph (b) are necessary to
prevent the disqualification rule from imposing too severe a deterrent
against entering public service. The limitation of disqualification in
paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(2) to matters involving a specific party or
parties, rather than extending disqualification to all substantive issues
on which the lawyer worked, serves a similar function.

  [5] When a lawyer has been employed by one government agency and then
moves to a second government agency, it may be appropriate to treat that
second agency as another client for purposes of this Rule, as when a lawyer
is employed by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency.
However, because the conflict of interest is governed by paragraph (d), the
latter agency is not required to screen the lawyer as paragraph (b)
requires a law firm to do. The question of whether two government agencies
should be regarded as the same or different clients for conflict of
interest purposes is beyond the scope of these Rules. See Rule 1.13, Comment [9].

  [6] Paragraphs (b) and (c) contemplate a screening arrangement. See Rule
1.0(k) (requirements for screening procedures). These paragraphs do not
prohibit a lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share established
by prior independent agreement, but that lawyer may not receive
compensation directly relating the lawyer's compensation to the fee in the
matter in which the lawyer is disqualified.

  [7] Notice, including a description of the screened lawyer's prior
representation and of the screening procedures employed, generally should
be given as soon as practicable after the need for screening becomes apparent.

  [8] Paragraph (c) operates only when the lawyer in question has
knowledge of the information, which means actual knowledge; it does not
operate with respect to information that merely could be imputed to the lawyer.

  [9] Paragraphs (a) and (d) do not prohibit a lawyer from jointly
representing a private party and a government agency when doing so is
permitted by Rule 1.7 and is not otherwise prohibited by law.

  [10] For purposes of paragraph (e) of this Rule, a "matter" may continue
in another form. In determining whether two particular matters are the
same, the lawyer should consider the extent to which the matters involve
the same basic facts, the same or related parties, and the time elapsed.


[Amended effective September 1, 2006.]