RULE 1.10
              IMPUTATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:  GENERAL RULE


    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (e), 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 Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless
the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the disqualified lawyer and
does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation
of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.

    (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 and
not currently represented by the firm, unless:

    (1) the matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the
formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and

    (2) any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules
1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter.

    (c) A disqualification prescribed by this rule may be waived by the affected
client under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.

    (d) The disqualification of lawyers associated in a firm with former or
current government lawyers is governed by Rule 1.11.

    (e)  When the prohibition on representation under paragraph (a) is based on
Rule 1.9(a) or (b), and arises out of the disqualified lawyer's association
with a prior firm, no other lawyer in the firm shall knowingly represent a
person in a matter in which that lawyer is disqualified unless:

    (1) the personally disqualified lawyer is screened by effective means from
participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom;

    (2) the former client of the personally disqualified lawyer receives
notice of the conflict and the screening mechanism used to prohibit
dissemination of information relating to the former representation;

    (3) the firm is able to demonstrate by convincing evidence that no
material information relating to the former representation was transmitted by
the personally disqualified lawyer before implementation of the screening
mechanism and notice to the former client.

Any presumption that information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) has been
or will be transmitted may be rebutted if the personally disqualified lawyer
serves on his or her former law firm and former client an affidavit attesting
that the personally disqualified lawyer will not participate in the matter and
will not discuss the matter or the representation with any other lawyer or
employee of his or her current law firm, and attesting that during the period
of the lawyer's personal disqualification those lawyers or employees who do
participate in the matter will be apprised that the personally disqualified
lawyer is screened from participating in or discussing the matter. Such
affidavit shall describe the procedures being used effectively to screen the
personally disqualified lawyer. Upon request of the former client, such
affidavit shall be updated periodically to show actual compliance with the
screening procedures. The law firm, the personally disqualified lawyer, or the
former client may seek judicial review in a court of general jurisdiction of
the screening mechanism used, or may seek court supervision to ensure that
implementation of the screening procedures has occurred and that effective
actual compliance has been achieved.


                                     Comment

Definition of "Firm"

    [1] For purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the term "firm"
denotes lawyers in a law partnership, professional corporation, sole
proprietorship or other association authorized to practice law; or lawyers
employed in a legal services organization or the legal department of a
corporation or other organization. See Rule 1.0(c). Whether two or more lawyers
constitute a firm within this definition can depend on the specific facts. See
Rule 1.0, Comments [2] - [4].

Principles of Imputed Disqualification

    [2] [Washington revision] The rule of imputed disqualification stated in
paragraph (a) gives effect to the principle of loyalty to the client as it
applies to lawyers who practice in a law firm. Such situations can be
considered from the premise that a firm of lawyers is essentially one lawyer
for purposes of the rules governing loyalty to the client, or from the premise
that each lawyer is vicariously bound by the obligation of loyalty owed by each
lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated. Paragraph (a) operates only among
the lawyers currently associated in a firm. When a lawyer moves from one firm
to another, the situation is governed by Rules 1.9(b) and 1.10(b) and (e).

    [3] The rule in paragraph (a) does not prohibit representation where neither
questions of client loyalty nor protection of confidential information are
presented. Where one lawyer in a firm could not effectively represent a given
client because of strong political beliefs, for example, but that lawyer will
do no work on the case and the personal beliefs of the lawyer will not
materially limit the representation by others in the firm, the firm should not
be disqualified. On the other hand, if an opposing party in a case were owned
by a lawyer in the law firm, and others in the firm would be materially limited
in pursuing the matter because of loyalty to that lawyer, the personal
disqualification of the lawyer would be imputed to all others in the firm.

    [4] [Reserved. See Washington Comment [11].]

    [5] Rule 1.10(b) operates to permit a law firm, under certain circumstances,
to represent a person with interests directly adverse to those of a client
represented by a lawyer who formerly was associated with the firm. The Rule
applies regardless of when the formerly associated lawyer represented the
client. However, the law firm may not represent a person with interests adverse
to those of a present client of the firm, which would violate Rule 1.7.
Moreover, the firm may not represent the person where the matter is the same or
substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer
represented the client and any other lawyer currently in the firm has material
information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c).

    [6] [Washington revision] Rule 1.10(c) removes imputation with the informed
consent of the affected client or former client under the conditions stated in
Rule 1.7. The conditions stated in Rule 1.7 require the lawyer to determine
that the representation is not prohibited by Rule 1.7(b) and that each affected
client or former client has given informed consent to the representation,
confirmed in writing. In some cases, the risk may be so severe that the
conflict may not be cured by client consent. For a definition of informed
consent, see Rule 1.0(e).

    [7] Where a lawyer has joined a private firm after having represented the
government, imputation is governed by Rule 1.11(b) and (c), not this Rule.
Under Rule 1.11(d), where a lawyer represents the government after having
served clients in private practice, nongovernmental employment or in another
government agency, former-client conflicts are not imputed to government
lawyers associated with the individually disqualified lawyer.

    [8] Where a lawyer is prohibited from engaging in certain transactions under
Rule 1.8, paragraph (k) of that Rule, and not this Rule, determines whether
that prohibition also applies to other lawyers associated in a firm with the
personally prohibited lawyer.

Additional Washington Comments (9 - 13)

Principles of Imputed Disqualification

    [9] The screening provisions in Washington RPC 1.10 differ from those in
the Model Rule. Washington's adoption of a nonconsensual screening provision
in 1993 preceded the ABA's 2009 adoption of a similar approach in the Model
Rules. Washington's rule was amended and the screening provision recodified
as paragraph (e) in 2006, and paragraphs (a) and (e) were further amended in
2011 to conform more closely to the Model Rules version. None of the
amendments to this Rule, however, represents a change in Washington law. The
Rule preserves Washington practice established in 1993 with respect to
screening by allowing a lawyer personally disqualified from representing a
client based on the lawyer's prior association with a firm to be screened
from a representation to be undertaken by other members of the lawyer's new
firm under the circumstances set forth in paragraph (e).  See Washington Comment [10].

    [10] Washington's RPC 1.10 was amended in 1993 to permit representation with
screening under certain circumstances. Rule 1.10(e) retains the screening
mechanism adopted as Washington RPC 1.10(b) in 1993, thus allowing a firm to
represent a client with whom a lawyer in the firm has a conflict based on his
or her association with a prior firm if the lawyer is effectively screened from
participation in the representation, is apportioned no part of the fee earned
from the representation and the client of the former firm receives notice of
the conflict and the screening mechanism. However, prior to undertaking the
representation, non-disqualified firm members must evaluate the firm's ability
to provide competent representation even if the disqualified member can be
screened in accordance with this Rule. While Rule 1.10 does not specify the
screening mechanism to be used, the law firm must be able to demonstrate that
it is adequate to prevent the personally disqualified lawyer from receiving or
transmitting any confidential information or from participating in the
representation in any way. The screening mechanism must be in place over the
life of the representation at issue and is subject to judicial review at the
request of any of the affected clients, law firms, or lawyers.  However, a
lawyer or law firm may rebut the presumption that information relating to the
representation has been transmitted by serving an affidavit describing the
screening mechanism and affirming that the requirements of the Rule have been met.

    [11] Under Rule 5.3, this Rule also applies to nonlawyer assistants and
lawyers who previously worked as nonlawyers at a law firm. See Daines v.
Alcatel, 194 F.R.D. 678 (E.D. Wash. 2000); Richard v. Jain, 168 F. Supp. 2d
1195 (W.D. Wash. 2001).

    [12] In serving an affidavit permitted by paragraph (e), a lawyer may serve
the affidavit on the former law firm alone (without simultaneously serving the
former client directly) if the former law firm continues to represent the
former client and the lawyer contemporaneously requests in writing that the
former law firm provide a copy of the affidavit to the former client. If the
former client is no longer represented by the former law firm or if the lawyer
has reason to believe the former law firm will not promptly provide the former
client with a copy of the affidavit, then the affidavit must be served directly
on the former client also. Serving the affidavit on a represented former client
does not violate Rule 4.2 because the communication with the former client is
not about the "subject of the representation" and the notice is "authorized . . .
by law," i.e., the Rules of Professional Conduct.

    [13] Rule 1.8(l) conflicts are not imputed to other members of a firm under
paragraph (a) of this Rule unless the relationship creates a conflict of
interest for the individual lawyer under Rule 1.7 and also presents a
significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the
remaining lawyers in the firm.


[Amended effective September 1, 2006; September 1, 2011.]