US · rules
Fed. Cir. R. 50
Employee and Former Employee
(a) Restrictions on Practice.
No employee of the court may engage in the practice of law. No former
employee of the court may participate or assist, by representation,
consultation, or otherwise, in any case that was pending in the court
during the period of employment.
(b) Requirements of Counsel.
All counsel appearing in cases before the court are required to take
reasonable steps to ensure compliance with this rule. See In re
Violation of Rule 50, 712 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
(c) Employee Defined.
For purposes of this rule, a person serving at the court as an intern,
whether in a judge’s chambers or otherwise, is considered an employee
of the court, whether such service is for pay, for law school credit, or
voluntary.
History
PRACTICE NOTES TO RULE 50 All Future Participation and Assistance Prohibited. A former employee of the court is prohibited from participating or assisting in any case after employment with the court if the case was before this court at any point during the person’s employment. Thus, for example, a former employee is prohibited from participating or assisting in a case in a trial forum, agency, or other forum if the case was before this court during the person’s employment and was remanded by this court or otherwise continued in the trial forum, agency, or other forum for any other reason. A former employee is also prohibited, for example, from participating or assisting in the case if it is subsequently before this court again or if it is before the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition to Federal Circuit Rule 50 , former employees should also consult any applicable local bar rules and Canon 3(d) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees. (Return to Table of Contents) PRACTICE NOTES TO RULE 50 Cases Pending List A court employee is provided the full list of pending cases that the employee may not participate in or assist with under Rule 50 after employment at the court (“Appeals Pending List”). Employers and former employees are expected to use that Appeals Pendi ng List to comply with Rule 50. See In re Violation of Rule 50, 712 F. App’x 1005, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018). An employer or potential employer should not request a former or current court employee to disclose the actual cases the employee worked on while at the court, and the employee should not identify such cases to the employer or potential employer. See Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion No. 109 (“[J]udges and clerks should generally decline law firms’ requests for lists of all matters the clerks participated in, because such requests may call for the disclosure of confidential information[.]”); Canon 3D(3) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees (“A judicial employee should never disclose any confidential information received in the course of official duties except as required in the performance of such duties. A former judicial employee should observe the same restriction on disclosure of confidential information that applies to a current judicial employee, except as modified by the a ppointing authority.”). Other sources of ethical obligations, outside the scope of this Practice Note, might be relevant to a former court employee’s and an employer’s representation on a particular matter and might extend to cases beyond those on the App eals Pending List. This Practice Note does not attempt to define those other ethical obligations or to address mechanisms for compliance with those obligations. (Return to Table of Contents)
Provenance
- Source
- uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-18
- Edition
- 2026-09-18
- Content hash
5a710103cfeee245aee9e5f67b1c79c90190f5e8a3303e5f56b6d0f5713b26dc
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.