MRPC Rule 1.10

(a) 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,

1.8(c), 1.9(a), or 2.2. If a lawyer leaves a firm and becomes associated with another firm,

MRPC 1.10(b) governs whether the new firm is imputedly disqualified because of the newly

hired lawyer’s prior services in or association with the lawyer’s former law firm.

Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 30 Updated with MSC order(s)

(b) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, the firm may not knowingly represent a

person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that lawyer, or a firm with

which the lawyer was associated, is disqualified under Rule 1.9(b), unless:

(1) the disqualified lawyer is 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 appropriate tribunal to enable it to ascertain

compliance with the provisions of this rule.

(c) 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.

(d) A disqualification prescribed by this rule may be waived by the affected client under the

conditions stated in Rule 1.7.

Definition of “Firm.”

For purposes of these rules, the term “ firm” includes lawyers in a private firm and lawyers

employed in the legal department of a corporation or other organization or in a legal services

organization. Whether two or more lawyers constitute a firm within this definition can depend

on the specific facts. For example, two practitioners who share office space and occasionally

consult or assist each other ordinarily would not be regarded as constituting a firm. However, if

they present themselves to the public in a way suggesting that they are a firm or conduct

themselves as a firm, they should be regarded as a firm for purposes of the rules. The terms of

any formal agreement between associated lawyers are relevant in determining whether they are a

firm, as is the fact that they have mutual access to confidential information concerning the clients

they serve. Furthermore, it is relevant in doubtful cases to consider the underlying purpose of the

rule that is involved. A group of lawyers could be regarded as a firm for purposes of the rule that

the same lawyer should not represent opposing parties in litigation, while it might not be so

regarded for purposes of the rule that information acquired by one lawyer is attributed to another.

With respect to the law department of an organization, there is ordinarily no question that the

members of the department constitute a firm within the meaning of the Rules of Professional

Conduct. However, there can be uncertainty as to the identity of the client. For example, it may

not be clear whether the law department of a corporation represents a subsidiary or an affiliated

corporation, as well as the corporation by which the members of the department are directly

employed. A similar question can arise concerning an unincorporated association and its local

affiliates.

Similar questions can also arise with respect to lawyers in legal aid. Lawyers employed in the

same unit of a legal service organization constitute a firm, but not necessarily those employed in

separate units. As in the case of independent practitioners, whether the lawyers should be treated

as being associated with each other can depend on the particular rule that is involved and on the

specific facts of the situation.

Where a lawyer has joined a private firm after having represented the government, the situation

is governed by Rule 1.11(a) and (b); where a lawyer represents the government after having

served private clients, the situation is governed by Rule 1.11(c)(1). The individual lawyer

involved is bound by the rules generally, including Rules 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9.

Principles of Imputed Disqualification.

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 or has

recently moved from one firm to another, the situation is governed by Rules 1.9(b) and 1.10(b).

Rule 1.10(c) 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), unless the provisions of this rule are

followed.

[amended effective May 22, 2007]