Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.12

History

(SCO 1123 effective July 15, 1993; rescinded and repromulgated effective April 15, 2009; amended by SCO 1984 effective October 5, 2022) COMMENT This Rule generally parallels Rule 1.11. The term “personally and substantially” signifies that a judge who was a member of a multi-member court, and thereafter left judicial office 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. The Application section of the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct, section D(3), provides that a lawyer who serves as a special master in a proceeding shall not “act as a lawyer in that proceeding or in any other proceeding related thereto” except as otherwise permitted by paragraph (a) of this rule. Although phrased differently from this Rule, those Rules correspond in meaning. 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 9.1(g) and (c). Other law or codes of ethics governing third-party neutrals may impose more stringent standards of personal or imputed disqualification. See Rule 2.4. 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. Requirements for screening procedures are stated in Rule 9.1(q). 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. 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. Cross reference: Canon 3E(1)(b), Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct: “Unless [the ground] for disqualification [is] waived as permitted by [Canon]3F, a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which…the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during their association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning [the matter].”