Conn. R. Prof'l Conduct 1.12

History

(Amended June 26, 2006, to take effect Jan. 1, 2007.) (P.B. 1978-1997, Rule 1.12.) (Amended June 26, 2006, to take effect Jan. 1, 2007; amended June 13, 2014, to take effect Jan. 1, 2015.) COMMENTARY: 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 repre - senting 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 Commentary to Rule 1.11. Participation on the merits or in settlement discussions is considered per - sonal and substantial. Nominal or ministerial responsibility is not considered personal and substantial. Like former judges, lawyers who have served as arbitrators, mediators or other third-party neutrals may be asked to repre- sent a client in a matter in which the lawyer participated person- ally. This Rule forbids such representation unless all of the parties to the proceedings give their informed consent, con - firmed in writing. See Rule 1.0 (c) and (f). Other law or codes of ethics governing third-party neutrals may impose more strin- gent 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 confi- dentiality under law or codes of ethics governing third-party neutrals. Thus, subsection (c) provides that conflicts of the personally disqualified lawyer will be imputed to other lawyers in a law firm unless the conditions of this subsection are met. Requirements for screening procedures are stated in Rule 1.0 (l). Subsection (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.