RPC RULE 1.12
   FORMER JUDGE, ARBITRATOR, MEDIATOR OR OTHER THIRD-PARTY NEUTRAL


  (a) Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer shall not represent
anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated
personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer or
law clerk to such a person or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-
party neutral, unless all parties to the proceeding give informed consent
confirmed in writing.

  (b) A lawyer shall not negotiate for 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 as a judge or other
adjudicative officer or as an arbitrator, mediator or other third-party
neutral. A lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative
officer may negotiate for employment with a party or lawyer involved in a
matter in which the clerk is participating personally and substantially,
but only after the lawyer has notified the judge or other adjudicative officer.

  (c) If a lawyer is disqualified by paragraph (a), no lawyer in a firm
with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue
representation in the 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 parties and any
appropriate tribunal to enable them to ascertain compliance with the
provisions of this Rule.

  (d) An arbitrator selected as a partisan of a party in a multimember
arbitration panel is not prohibited from subsequently representing that party.

Comment

  [1] [Washington revision] This Rule generally parallels Rule 1.11. The
term "personally and substantially" signifies that a judge who was a member
of a multimember court, and thereafter left judicial officer to practice
law, is not prohibited from representing a client in a matter pending in
the court, but in which the former judge did not participate. So also the
fact that a former judge exercised administrative responsibility in a court
does not prevent the former judge from acting as a lawyer in a matter where
the judge had previously exercised remote or incidental administrative
responsibility that did not affect the merits. Compare the Comment to Rule
1.11. The term "adjudicative officer" includes such officials as judges pro
tempore, referees, special masters, hearing officers and other parajudicial
officers, and also lawyers who serve as part-time judges. There are
corresponding provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct. See CJC
paragraphs (A)(1)(b) and (2)(b) (application of the Code of Judicial
Conduct to part-time and pro tempore judges).

  [2] Like former judges, lawyers who have served as arbitrators, mediators
or other third-party neutrals may be asked to represent a client in a
matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially. This
Rule forbids such representation unless all of the parties to the
proceedings give their informed consent, confirmed in writing. See Rule
1.0(e) and (b). Other law or codes of ethics governing third-party neutrals
may impose more stringent standards of personal or imputed
disqualification. See Rule 2.4.

  [3] Although lawyers who serve as third-party neutrals do not have
information concerning the parties that is protected under Rule 1.6, they
typically owe the parties an obligation of confidentiality under law or
codes of ethics governing third-party neutrals. Thus, paragraph (c)
provides that conflicts of the personally disqualified lawyer will be
imputed to other lawyers in a law firm unless the conditions of this
paragraph are met.

  [4] Requirements for screening procedures are state in Rule 1.0(k).
Paragraph (c)(1) does not prohibit the screened lawyer from receiving a
salary or partnership share established by prior independent agreement, but
that lawyer may not receive compensation directly related to the matter in
which the lawyer is disqualified.

  [5] 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 that need for screening becomes apparent.


[Amended effective September 1, 2006.]