伦理意见285

非靠谱的滚球平台前政府雇员为靠谱的滚球平台工作

A lawyer who employs a nonlawyer former government employee must screen that person from matters that are the same as, 或实质上与…相关, 非靠谱的滚球平台协助政府靠谱的滚球平台代表政府客户的事项. 此外，规则4.4和8.4 preclude the lawyer from inducing the former government employee to reveal certain other types of confidential information.

适用的规则

• 规则1.11(历届政府及私人雇员)
• 规则4.4(尊重第三人权利)
• 规则5.3(非靠谱的滚球平台助理职责)
• 规则8.4(行为)

调查

联邦政府某部门的一位道德官员询问“D.C. 职业行为准则 to law firms that employ or use nonlawyers who are former employees of the Department. . . ." A "principal concern is the risk that confidential government information may be disclosed or abused," particularly when former government employees work as consultants in legal matters related to their former government duties. 在提出这一普遍关切时, the inquirer invites comment on four different scenarios: (1) the nonlawyer worked directly with government attorneys on a matter in which the law firm is now involved; (2) the former employee had no direct contact with government lawyers but was exposed to confidential government information; (3) the government is not a party to a case but still may be harmed by the abuse of confidential government information; and (4) the consultant formerly participated in government policy making.

讨论

我们从一开始就强调，D.C. 《靠谱的足球滚球平台》对非靠谱的滚球平台人员的行为不直接适用.¹ 在某些情况下, 然而, 规则要求靠谱的滚球平台对其非靠谱的滚球平台助理的行为负责. 例如，规则5.3, 在第(a)及(b)款中, requires a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure "that the [nonlawyer’s] conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.“此外, 在某些情况下, 如果靠谱的滚球平台从事违反职业行为规则的行为，靠谱的滚球平台将对非靠谱的滚球平台雇员或合伙人的行为负责. 规则5.3(c). 规则8.4(a) also provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct . . . 通过他人的行为."

因此，靠谱的滚球平台的职业义务为我们的分析提供了必要的背景. 虽然没有什么不妥 本身 关于一名靠谱的滚球平台与对手的前雇员交流， 看到 ABA正式Op. 91-359 (1991), it is important to consider the rules dealing with "side-switching" and imputed disqualification of lawyers. The government lawyer who moves to the private sector is precluded from accepting employment "in connection with a matter which is the same as, 或实质上与…相关, 靠谱的滚球平台以公职人员或雇员的身份亲自参与的事务,规则1.第11(a)条规定，他必须“屏蔽”其靠谱的滚球平台事务所正在处理的任何此类事项. 规则1.11(c). 看到一般 D.C. 靠谱的滚球平台公会法律道德通讯. 意见没有. 第279条(1998年)(讨论筛选的有效性，以解决推定的不合格问题).

尽管要求筛选的规则并不适用于非靠谱的滚球平台, 当非靠谱的滚球平台从一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所跳槽到另一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所时，通常需要进行筛选.² 例如, 美国靠谱的滚球平台协会道德和职业责任委员会考虑了当一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所的诉讼事务助理被另一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所雇用时所出现的道德问题，并得出结论认为，筛选将足以避免新雇主的不合格. ABA非正式Op. 88-1526 (1988). 官方简介解释道:

如果靠谱的滚球平台事务所聘用的非靠谱的滚球平台曾受雇于另一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所，则该靠谱的滚球平台事务所可以继续代理与该非靠谱的滚球平台曾处理过的前雇主的客户的利益相冲突的客户, 只要雇主公司严格遵守本意见中所述的筛选程序，并对非靠谱的滚球平台人员进行筛选，使其不了解有关这些客户的信息或参与涉及这些客户的事务，只要非靠谱的滚球平台人员不向雇主公司的任何人透露与前雇主的客户代表有关的信息. 除了, 非靠谱的滚球平台的前雇主必须告诫非靠谱的滚球平台不得透露与前雇主的客户代理有关的信息.

寻求对模型规则5的指导.第3条要求监督靠谱的滚球平台作出合理努力，以确保其非靠谱的滚球平台雇员的行为“符合靠谱的滚球平台的职业义务”,然而，美国靠谱的滚球平台协会委员会认识到，“重要的是，在保护客户利益的前提下，非靠谱的滚球平台雇员在就业机会上有尽可能多的流动性。. . . . 相应的, any restrictions on the nonlawyer’s employment should be held to the minimum necessary to protect confidentiality of client information.委员会还注意到，在其意见中通过的筛选标准“平等地适用于靠谱的滚球平台事务所中所有能够获得与客户代表有关的重要资料的非靠谱的滚球平台人员，也适用于技术上可能是独立承包商的代理人。, 比如调查人员."³

意见No. 我们委员会还处理了一位靠谱的滚球平台助理从一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所跳槽到另一家靠谱的滚球平台事务所的案例. The new firm was handling a matter "substantially related" to one on which the paralegal had worked at the former firm. 应用规则5.我们得出结论，新公司绝不能利用任何机密⁴

that the paralegal had obtained during former employment but could avoid imputed disqualification by "screening" the paralegal from that matter. “在迁徙的情况下 nonlawyers 总的来说，我们赞同“ABA非正式Op”中反映的支持筛选的方法. 88- 1526 (1988).

Many other legal ethics committees have also required screening when nonlawyers move from one law firm to another. 看,e.g., 教授. 分别地. 通讯.芝加哥靠谱的滚球平台事务所，Op. 93-5 (1993) (screening applied to secretary who moved from one law firm to another); Michigan 道德Op. RI-284 (1996)(screening applied to secretary); Michigan 道德Op. RI-115 (1992) (screening applied to secretary); New Jersey S. Ct. 咨询通讯. 在教授. 道德Op. 665 (1992) (screening applied to paralegal); North Carolina 道德Op. RPC 176 (1994) (screening applied to paralegal); South Carolina 酒吧 Ethics Advisory Op. 93-29(1993)(筛选申请秘书).

我们同样得出结论，当非靠谱的滚球平台的前政府雇员直接与政府靠谱的滚球平台就相同的问题进行工作时，必须使用筛选, 或实质上与…有关, 他的靠谱的滚球平台事务所老板也卷入了这件事. 然而, this conclusion is based on the fact that the nonlawyer worked directly with government attorneys who were representing a client. The obligation to preserve client confidences and secrets has no application if there is no underlying lawyer-client relationship. 因此，规则1.6 does not govern the situation described by the inquirer where the former employee did not work with government lawyers, 但在任职期间，他还接触到了政府机密信息.⁵

Nor is there any bar to employment (or obligation of screening) under the 规则 when the former government employee participated in government policy making. It is quite common for lawyers and nonlawyers alike to use expertise acquired in government employment to enhance their marketability in the private sector. "The making of rules of general applicability and the establishment of general policy will ordinarily not be a ’matter’ within the meaning of 规则1.11." D.C. 职业行为规则，规则1.11、评论[3]. 同样，只有当特定信息(不同于一般的代理专业知识或联系) that a former government lawyer may have had access to in one matter is likely to be useful in a subsequent matter. . . ." 布朗诉. 哥伦比亚特区分区调整委员会, 486 A.2d 37, 48 (D.C. 1984) (在银)(强调补充). 因此, 无论是靠谱的滚球平台还是非靠谱的滚球平台，都不会因为参与政府政策制定或非常熟悉政府机构的运作而被取消资格.

在有限的情况下, 然而, 《靠谱的足球滚球平台》可能禁止目前雇用非靠谱的滚球平台出身的前政府雇员的靠谱的滚球平台事务所诱使其违反并非因协助政府靠谱的滚球平台代表客户而产生的保密义务. 规则4.第4条有关部分规定:“靠谱的滚球平台在代表委托人时，不得 . . . 使用侵犯[第三人]合法权利的取证方法.“我们以前没有解释过这项规定, 我们的规则里没有有用的评论, 但在其他司法管辖区的意见中，对其范围有一些解释.

例如，在Formal Op中. 第91-359(1991)条，美国靠谱的滚球平台协会道德和职业责任委员会得出结论，规则4.2不排除与对方公司的前雇员接触. 委员会警告说, 然而, 靠谱的滚球平台“必须小心，不要试图诱使前雇员违反靠谱的滚球平台与客户通信所附带的特权，因为他或她作为前雇员与其前雇员的靠谱的滚球平台的通信受到特权的保护 . . . . 这样的尝试可能会违反规则4.(要求尊重第三人的权利)." 另请参阅 ABA正式Op. 97-408, n.14(1997)(“靠谱的滚球平台知道从前政府雇员那里获得法律保护不得披露用于诉讼的信息，但可能违反示范规则4.4, 8.4(c)和8.4(d) . . . ."); 康涅狄格州. 酒吧屁股，非正式的Op. 96-4(1996)(规则4.4 precludes lawyer from reviewing and copying psychiatric records of client’s ex-wife made confidential by statute); Pa. 酒吧屁股，非正式的Op. 93-135(1993)(规则4.4 prohibits lawyer from conducting surreptitious inspection of psychiatric records of major witness against client; although information would be very useful in impeaching witness, Pennsylvania caselaw makes such records absolutely confidential); New Jersey S. Ct. 咨询通讯. 在教授. 道德、人事处. 680 (1995) (if lawyer had surreptitiously copied confidential documents in possession of attorneys for adverse party, 还有一些证据, 这就违反了规则4.4). 虽然我们不相信规则4.4 precludes a lawyer from attempting to learn all information which the government would deem confidential, 它确实排除了诱使现任或前任雇员透露靠谱的滚球平台所知道的信息的企图，这些信息受到法规或公认的普通法特权的保护而不被披露.

结论

靠谱的滚球平台必须对非靠谱的滚球平台出身的前政府雇员进行甄别，以免涉及与靠谱的滚球平台相同的事务, 或实质上与…相关, 他或她协助政府靠谱的滚球平台代表客户的事项. 另一方面, 非靠谱的滚球平台不会因为他或她非常熟悉政府机构的运作或参与相关的政府政策制定而被取消从事某一事务的资格. 规则4.4和8.4 preclude attempts to induce the former government employee to reveal information made confidential by statute or a well-established common law privilege.

调查没有. 97-2-8
通过:1998年11月17日

1. The primary restrictions on former officers and employees of the federal government are found in the Ethics in Government Act, 看到, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §207，适用于靠谱的滚球平台和非靠谱的滚球平台. 本委员会无权解释本法和类似法律的要求.
2. We do not address the related issues that would be presented if the former government employee were now a lawyer. 看到维.C. 职业行为准则.6(g)和1.10(b).
3. 类似的, the conclusions we reach in this opinion do not depend on there being an employer/employee relationship between the nonlawyer and the lawyer, but apply equally when the nonlawyer former government employee has been hired as a consultant by a lawyer opposing the government.
4. 规则1.6(b) explains that the term “confidence” refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege. “秘密”一词的定义要宽泛得多，指的是“在客户要求保密的专业关系中获得的其他信息”, 否则泄露出来会很尴尬, 或者可能是有害的, 致客户端.”
5. 在许多情况下，询问者引起了我们的注意, disqualification or screening was required only because the nonlawyer had worked directly with lawyers in his or her former employment. 看,e.g.卡姆登诉. 马里兰州，华氏910度. 增刊. 1115 (D. Md. 1996) (lawyers disqualified because they “had listened in at the legal confessional”; former government employee had been extensively exposed to confidential client information of the other interested party); MMR/Wallace Power & 工业v. 泰晤士协会., 764 F. 增刊. 712 (D. 康涅狄格州. 1991) (attorneys disqualified; nonlawyer who had consulted on litigation, 与原告靠谱的滚球平台有过广泛接触吗, and had access to confidential litigation materials switched sides and became a trial consultant for defendants); Kapco Mfg. Co. v. C & O输入., 637 F. 增刊. 1231 (N.D. 生病了. 1985) (disqualification denied; law firm secretary/office manager who moved to opposing law firm had been effectively screened); Williams v. 第588层. 增刊. 1037 (W.D. Mo. 1984)(原告靠谱的滚球平台事务所被取消资格，因为他们也代表一个客户, 在被告受雇期间, assisted one of defendant’s attorneys with the defense of plaintiffs’ claims and had access to confidential information about these cases).