Ethics Opinion 349

与参加联合辩护小组的筛选澳博app有关联的澳博app的利益冲突

根据规则1，联合防御协议不会产生“前客户”冲突.因为联合辩护小组的成员不会因为这样的协议而成为澳博app的“客户”. 然而, a lawyer who participates in a joint defense agreement may acquire contractual and fiduciary obligations to the members of the joint defense group who were not the lawyer’s clients. 根据规则1，这种义务可能导致个人丧失资格的冲突.7(b)(4) to the extent that they materially limit the lawyer’s ability to prosecute or defend a substantially related matter adverse to a joint defense group member.

根据规则1.在第10(a)(1)条中，此类冲突不会自动归咎于澳博app事务所的其他澳博app. 如果澳博app在处理共同辩护小组事务后转到其他澳博app事务所, 新公司的其他澳博app可以承担与联合辩护小组成员不利的实质性相关事务, 前提是及时将个人不合格的澳博app从新的代理中筛选出来. 如果该澳博app一直在同一家事务所工作，分析就会更加困难. 如果该公司希望承担对联合辩护小组成员不利的相关事项, the firm must consider: (i) whether the entire firm is bound by a joint defense agreement that one of its lawyers signed while affiliated with the firm; and (ii) if not, 处理新案件的澳博app是否可能在同一家律所的其他人处理该案件时接触到联合辩护小组案件的机密信息.

适用的规则

• 规则1.6 (Confidentiality of Information)
• 规则1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General)
• 规则1.9 (Conflict of Interest: Former Client)
• 规则1.10(推定取消资格通则)

调查

《澳博app下载网》(以下简称《澳博app下载网》)为正在考虑代理对该澳博app或同一澳博app事务所其他澳博app的前客户不利的代理的澳博app提供了明确的指导. 委员会收到多次询问，询问《澳博app下载网》是否以及在何种程度上适用于对从未是该澳博app或澳博app事务所客户的联合辩护小组成员不利的陈述. 在这一意见中，委员会审议了下列设想的两种变化:

澳博appA在一起针对个人雇主(“雇主”)及其他人的刑事调查中代表个人. A澳博app与其他调查对象签订了共同辩护协议, including Employer, arising out of a common interest. 一个澳博app subsequently received confidential information relating to the investigation from Employer and participated in meetings with Employer’s counsel to discuss joint strategy and other work product. 澳博appA最终解决了个人客户与政府之间的问题, and the representation terminated.

Scenario #1—New Firm: A澳博app代表个人解决了刑事案件后, 他离开了原来的澳博app事务所，加入了一家新的澳博app事务所(“新事务所”)。. 客户X向新事务所提出起诉雇主，要求赔偿因导致刑事调查的行为而造成的损失. 新公司建议将A排除在代理之外. A澳博app是新律所唯一参与共同辩护协议的澳博app. 因为在A澳博app加入新律所之前就完成了代理工作, 新律所没有其他澳博app在刑事调查中代表这名员工. 这种表述是否违反规则，特别是规则1.6, 1.9和1.10?

Scenario #2—Same Firm: 一个澳博app does not change law firms. 刑事案解决后, 客户X向澳博appA的澳博app事务所(“澳博app事务所”)提出诉讼，要求雇主赔偿因导致刑事调查的行为所造成的损害. Because the joint defense agreement that 一个澳博app signed with Employer required A to keep confidential all information as well as work product shared by Employer, Firm proposes to screen 一个澳博app and all the lawyers with whom he worked on the criminal investigation from participating in the lawsuit to be filed by Client X. 假设施加了有效的屏蔽, 律所代表客户X反对雇主是否违反了任何规则, in particular 规则 1.6, 1.9和1.10?

分析

在哥伦比亚特区，规则没有提到联合防御协议. 在其他司法管辖区，由于澳博app曾在同一事务所的另一名澳博app的联合辩护小组中担任过成员，某些判决取消了澳博app参与不利于联合辩护小组成员的事项的资格. 看,e.g., All American Semiconductor, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 2009-1年度贸易案件. (cch)¶76,465 (n ..D. 卡尔. 12月. 18, 2008), order clarified by 2009-1年度贸易案件. (cch)¶76,501 (n ..D. 卡尔. 2月. 5, 2009); In re Gabapentin Patent Litig. 407 F. 增刊. 2d 607 (D.N.J. 2005), reconsideration denied, 432 F. 增刊. 2d 461 (D.N.J. 2006); National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. 戈德比所, 924 S.W.2d 123 (Tex). 1996).¹ 这些案件依赖于澳博app根据其他司法管辖区的规则对前客户所承担的义务. 在哥伦比亚特区处理这些问题, 必须区分《澳博app下载网》规定的义务和根据其他法律产生的义务, 如合同法或信义义务原则. 本委员会的管辖权限于《澳博app下载网》所引起的问题.

A. Background.

1. Duties to Former Clients.

Without a former client’s consent, a law firm may not represent others in suing the former client in matters that are the same as or substantially related to the matter in which the firm represented the former client. 规则1.第9条禁止代表前客户的澳博app在相同或实质性相关的事项中代表任何人反对前客户.² 规则1.10(a)将该冲突归咎于同一澳博app事务所的所有其他澳博app, 即使其他澳博app与前客户的代理没有任何关系.³ When a lawyer joins a new firm, 然而, 只有当澳博app“事实上获得了受规则1保护的信息”时，冲突才会归咎于事务所内的其他澳博app.对该事项至关重要的[信息的机密性].规则1.10(b).⁴ 虽然规则承认屏幕的概念⁵ -并要求在某些情况下使用筛网-筛网本身并不能解决规则1下的推定前客户冲突.9和1.10. 看到 D.C. 法律道德 Opinion 279 (1998).

2. Joint Defense Agreements Generally.

共同防御协议是由各方签订的, 根据可适用的利益冲突规则选择或必要, 在这件事上有不同的澳博app，但有一些共同的利益. 它们可用于刑事和民事案件. They may be written or unwritten. 本委员会不就联合防御协定的有效性或复杂性发表意见, 但在此简要介绍这类协定的背景，作为将《澳博app下载网》适用于所提问题的背景.

共同辩护协议(也称为共同利益协议)是客户及其澳博app在不放弃其他适用特权的情况下与第三方分享特权信息的一种方式.

The joint defense privilege, 通常被称为共同利益规则, 如果两个或两个以上的当事人和/或他们各自的澳博app参与联合辩护协议，保护他们免于强制披露通信的澳博app-客户特权是否有延伸. It permits a client to disclose information to her attorney in the presence of joint parties and their counsel without waiving the attorney-client privilege and is intended to preclude joint parties and their attorneys from disclosing confidential information learned as a consequence of the joint defense without permission.

美国诉. 夏朝, 81 F.增刊. 2d 7, 16 (D.D.C. 2000) (citations omitted). “It protects communications between the parties where they are ‘part of an on-going and joint effort to set up a common defense strategy’ in connection with actual or prospective litigation.” Minebea有限公司. v. Papst, 228 F.R.D. 13, 15 (D.D.C. 2005) (citations omitted). “该规则不仅适用于受澳博app-当事人保密特权约束的通信, 但也有受工作产品原则保护的通信.” Id. 16岁(引用原文) In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 902 F.2d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 1990)). 虽然偶尔也被称为一种特权, the common interest doctrine is really an exception to the rule that no privilege attaches to communications between a client and an attorney in the presence of a third person.” 美国 v. 博德曼澳博app事务所, 492 F.3d 806, 815 (7th Cir. 2007).

As with any contract or other agreement, 共同防御协议的具体条款取决于协议本身. Some forms of joint defense agreement define in great detail the rights and obligations that each member of the joint defense group is assuming with respect to every other member of the group. 例如, the joint defense agreement might specifically disclaim any attorney-client relationship with the members of the joint defense group who are not the participating lawyer’s client. 它还可能提供一项具体的豁免，允许使用共同防御的机密信息来盘问和弹劾共同防御小组的成员，该成员在放弃共同防御后成为对手的证人, e.g., a guilty plea or settlement agreement.

两种共同防卫协议的一种形式规定如下:

Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to create an attorney-client relationship between any attorney and anyone other than the client of that attorney and the fact that any attorney has entered this Agreement shall not be used as a basis for seeking to disqualify any counsel from representing any other party in this or any other proceeding; and no attorney who has entered into this Agreement shall be disqualified from examining or cross-examining any client who testifies at any proceeding, 不管是获得豁免权还是其他, because of such attorney's participation in this Agreement; and the signatories and their clients further agree that a signatory attorney examining or cross-examining any client who testifies at any proceeding, 不管是获得豁免权还是其他, may use any Defense Material or other information contributed by such client during the joint defense; and it is herein represented that each undersigned counsel to this Agreement has specifically advised his or her respective client of this clause and that such client has agreed to its provisions.

美国诉. 备用轮胎, 246 F.增刊. 2d 1069, 1085 (N.D. 卡尔. (引用《澳博app》). 法律Institute-Am. 酒吧的屁股稀烂 联邦法院审判证据:问题与解决之道, at 35 (1999)).

事实上, 备用轮胎 法院 recommended use of such a waiver in a criminal case after holding that a joint defense agreement which purported to create “a general duty of loyalty to all participating defendants” was “unacceptable” and supported by “neither precedent nor sound policy.” 464 F. 增刊. 2d在1084-85.⁶ 法院认为，“共同防卫协议各方之间的忠诚义务会造成潜在冲突的雷区。.” Id. at 1083. Such conflicts would include:

• The inability to cross-examine at trial co-defendants who participated in the joint defense group but later decided to cooperate with the adversary and testify on its behalf.⁷

• 无法“盘问为自己作证的被告”.” Id.

• 无法“以任何方式与参与共同辩护协议的其他被告的辩护相冲突”.” Id.

• 无法“将责任推给其他被告或提出任何削弱其辩护的证据”.” Id.

As illustrated by the above, “a joint defense agreement that imposes a duty of loyalty to all members of the joint defense agreement eliminates the utility of employing separate counsel for each defendant and (for purposes of conflict analysis) effectively creates a situation in which all signing defendants are represented jointly by a team of all signing attorneys.” 备用轮胎 at 1083. 在某些情况下，这种情况在道德上是不允许的，包括那些呈现给 备用轮胎 法院. 看到id. (第1083-1084条)“法院当然不能允许像本案中利益如此不相关的被告共同代理.(引用美联储的话). R. 有罪的. P. 44(c)(2)).

就像共同辩护协议可能包含一项特定的豁免，允许对叛逃的共同辩护小组成员进行盘问和弹劾, 它还可以提供具体商定的基本规则，以处理下列情况:

• Other lawyers in a participating attorney’s law firm are asked to represent clients in matters adverse to one or more non-client members of the joint defense group, 包括与共同防御事项有实质性关系的事项.

• 参与其中的澳博app会转到另一家澳博app事务所, or is later asked to undertake, 与共同防御事项有实质关系的对共同防御小组的一个或多个成员不利的陈述.

The parties could agree, 例如, that other attorneys at any law firm that the participating attorney might later join shall not be precluded by virtue of the attorney’s past participation in the joint defense group from undertaking, or continuing to handle, 对联合辩护小组的一个或多个非客户成员不利的潜在相关事项, 但该澳博app不亲自参加代理，并及时予以甄别. 这种谅解将提供确定性，并避免在大多数司法管辖区的专业行为规则下可能出现的问题，因为它提供了在适用规则下可能被视为需要同意的范围内的事先同意.⁸

B. Joint Defense Agreements and the 规则.

In the District of Columbia, 规则1.第9条只针对涉及澳博app“前客户”的冲突. By its own terms, 规则1.对从未作为客户的个人或实体不承担任何义务.⁹ 哥伦比亚特区的判例法要求证明“以前存在澳博app与客户的关系”才能适用该规则. Derrickson v. Derrickson, 541 A.2d 149, 152 (D.C. 1988). Because a non-client member of a joint defense group is not a “client” – and in many cases could not be a client under the applicable conflicts rules – 规则1.9不排除对非委托人联合辩护小组成员的不利影响. 在没有规则1所禁止的“前客户”冲突的情况下.根据规则1，没有什么可以归咎于同一公司的其他澳博app.10(a).

类似规则1.第10(b)条仅适用于澳博app在第一家澳博app事务所代理“客户”后从一家澳博app事务所转到另一家澳博app事务所的情况. 该规则的文本中没有任何内容禁止新律所的其他澳博app反对他们的新同事从未代表过的个人或实体.

规则1也没有.对非客户建立保密义务，该义务可根据规则通过纪律强制执行. The only obligations that 规则1.“强加”涉及“澳博app委托人的秘密或秘密”.共同辩护协议不会使当事人成为参与澳博app的“客户”. 事实上，联合辩护协议être的目的是与非客户共享特权信息.

即使联合辩护小组的非客户成员不是“客户”或“前客户”,“他们是”第三方根据共同辩护协议，个别澳博app可能对其负有义务. 根据规则1，这种义务可能引起利益冲突.7.

规则1.7(b)(4)解决涉及第三方的冲突:

[A] lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a matter if… the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by the lawyer’s responsibilities to 或者兴趣 第三方 或者澳博app自己的财务、生意、财产或个人利益. (重点).

根据本规则, a lawyer’s confidentiality responsibilities to a non-client member of a joint defense group may preclude the lawyer from undertaking a representation adverse to the member in a substantially related matter that implicates the confidential information. 除非澳博app能够保证免除义务，否则澳博app本人将被取消参与此类事务的资格.¹⁰

Unlike other conflicts under 规则 1.7和1.9、规则1.7(b)(4)冲突不一定归咎于同一澳博app事务所的其他澳博app. 规则1.10(a)(1)将这种冲突从一般归责规则中剔除:

(a)澳博app在公司内联合, 当规则1禁止任何澳博app单独执业时，任何澳博app均不得在知情的情况下代表客户.7 or 1.9日,除非:

(1)禁止澳博app个人代理是基于规则1所述澳博app的利益.7(b)(4)，且该利益不会对事务所其他澳博app代理客户产生重大不利影响. . . .

因此, 共同辩护协议对非客户的义务将被视为澳博app个人对第三方的义务. 只要该澳博app的个人利益不构成对事务所其他澳博app代理客户产生不利影响的重大风险，该义务就不归责于事务所的其他澳博app. In most circumstances, 及时有效地进行筛选，可以消除澳博app个人在共同辩护协议下的义务对澳博app事务所其他澳博app代理客户产生不利影响的风险.¹¹

C. Application of the Pending 调查.

提交给委员会进行分析的两种情况都涉及澳博app事务所被要求代表客户X在一项联合辩护协议中对非客户参与者(雇主)的相关诉讼中，该澳博app事务所的一名现任澳博app参与了该协议, 一个澳博app, 曾经是一个派对. 我们假定诉讼不会涉及或对雇员——澳博appA在刑事调查中的前客户——产生不利影响.¹² 澳博appA从雇主处获得机密信息，共同辩护协议禁止他分享或代表他人使用这些信息来反对雇主. 寻求在对雇主的诉讼中代表X的澳博app事务所计划将该澳博app从代理中筛选出来.

这两种情况的唯一区别是, in the first scenario, A澳博app在处理刑事案件后更换了澳博app事务所. 新律所被要求在诉讼中代表X，新律所与过去的刑事代理的唯一联系是，它现在与在前一家律所处理该案件的澳博app有联系. In the second scenario, 相比之下, the law firm that is being asked to represent Client X against Employer is the same firm that 一个澳博app was associated with during the representation of the employee in the criminal matter.

1. The Screened Lawyer Is at a New Firm, 对联防组成员的有关事项已委托谁处理.

In the first scenario, 不应排除新事务所在根据规则1对雇主提起的诉讼中代表客户X.7(b)(4)和1.10(a)(1). While we assume 一个澳博app at New Firm has relevant confidential information of Employer that cannot be shared with others because of the joint defense agreement, 及时有效的筛选确保a澳博app不会违反共同辩护协议下澳博app自己的个人义务, 新公司的其他人不会因接触到不能使用或披露的机密信息而受到影响. This is a situation in which there would not appear to be any “significant risk of adversely affecting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in” New Firm, 因此，A澳博app的个人资格取消不会归咎于事务所的其他人. 新事务所不需要雇主的同意，因为雇主从来都不是a澳博app的客户. 因此，规则1.第9条不适用于澳博appA，并且没有规则1.根据规则1，将冲突归咎于新事务所的其他澳博app.10(a). 类似的, 雇主对A的非客户身份意味着新公司不存在规则1下的推定冲突.第10(b)条，仅适用于涉及横向澳博app过去代表“客户”的事项.”

2. 被筛选的澳博app仍在同一家事务所工作, 对联防组成员的相关事宜，现在由谁来处理.

当澳博appA留在同一家事务所时，规则1下的分析.9和他换公司时一样:澳博appA在规则1下不存在冲突.因为雇主从来不是澳博appA的客户. There is no 规则1.根据规则1，将冲突归咎于同一律所的其他澳博app.10. 然而，澳博appA在规则1下会有个人取消资格的冲突.(b)(4)在共同防卫协议项下，其对第三方的义务将, or reasonably may, 在对联合辩护小组成员不利的案件中代表当事人对其职业判断产生不利影响.

如上所述，个别澳博app的共同辩护协议与规则1相冲突.7(b)(4) is imputed to other lawyers in the same law firm only if the personally disqualified lawyer’s obligations under the joint defense agreement “present[] a significant risk of adversely affecting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm规则1.10(a)(1). The analysis of whether this will occur in the second scenario (where the lawyer stayed at the same firm) is complicated by two issues: (i) the possibility that the firm itself is bound by the joint defense agreement that one of its lawyers signed during an affiliation with the firm; and (ii) the practical difficulty of establishing a retroactive screen.

不考虑签署共同辩护协议的澳博app的个人义务, 澳博app事务所需要仔细考虑，根据澳博app事务所澳博app与事务所执业期间签署的协议，该澳博app事务所及其其他澳博app是否有任何保密或其他相关义务. 如果不参考具体协议的条款，就不能抽象地进行这种分析. 然而, it is unlikely that a firm could allow lawyers who had not participated in the prior representation to search the firm’s files respecting that representation for information that would be useful in the case against the joint defense group participant. 此外, 在某种程度上，根据共同防御协议获得的信息受规则1保护.6, 该公司及其其他澳博app将被禁止利用这些信息为其他客户谋取利益, 除非获得前客户的同意或某些其他规则1.6 exceptions apply.

除了, the original firm’s own involvement in the criminal investigation—through the then- and still-associated lawyer and any other firm attorneys or staff who participated in the representation—would raise questions about the timeliness and effectiveness of any screen it might erect to block the attorneys who planned to handle the substantially related litigation against Employer from exposure to confidential information arising from the earlier matter. 虽然律所可以采取措施，防止未来与诉讼澳博app就新问题讨论过去的问题, 它还需要确保他们中没有人在过去接触过有关此案的信息, when there might not have been any reason to take extra steps to keep them from hearing about or discussing the criminal matter that was being handled by others in that firm.

因此, 在这个场景中, the law firm likely would be precluded from undertaking the representation unless the law firm could conclude: (i) it and its other lawyers are not bound by the joint defense agreement; and (ii) none of the other lawyers had been exposed to any confidential information relating to the joint defense agreement.

这个问题本可以通过共同防御协议的条款加以澄清. 在这种情况下，澳博app事务所将有更多的选择，如果共同辩护协议规定:

(1) Screens would be erected within the firm so that only the participating lawyer and certain other named individuals associated with the firm would have access to confidential joint defense information; and

(2) Nothing in the joint defense agreement would preclude screened lawyers in the firm from undertaking litigation and other matters adverse to non-client members of the joint defense group, 包括可能被视为与作为共同防卫协议主题的事项实质性相关的事项.

我们承认，在很多情况下，让潜在的共同防御集团成员同意这种做法可能是困难的.

结论

在D下面.C. 规则, 与非客户签订的共同辩护协议不会对规则1下的非客户产生“前客户”冲突.9. 联合防御协议可能对第三方产生义务, 然而, 会导致参与的澳博app在规则1下产生冲突.(b)(4)对联合防御小组成员不利的拟议新事项. 然而, such conflicts are imputed to other lawyers in the same law firm only if the personally disqualified lawyer’s obligations under the joint defense agreement “present a significant risk of adversely affecting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the law firm.规则1.10(a)(1). 联合辩护小组事项由本人不合格的澳博app在其他澳博app事务所办理的, 澳博app的新事务所可以通过将澳博app从新事务中筛选出来来避免任何被认为不合格的情况. 当个人被取消资格的澳博app仍在同一澳博app事务所时, 然而, other lawyers at that firm who are considering undertaking the new matter adverse to the joint defense group member likely will face a disqualifying conflict under 规则1.7(b)(4) unless it is clear that: (i) none of them has any obligations under the joint defense agreement signed by another lawyer in the same firm; and (ii) none of them was exposed to confidential information about the past representation.

调查没有. 09-02-12
Published: September 2009

1. 在加巴喷丁专利诉讼案中, 例如, A澳博app事务所在诉讼过程中，对两名加入该事务所的横向澳博app进行了筛选，但最终被排除在诉讼资格之外. 该公司已经获得了横向的前客户的同意. 然而, 该公司被取消资格，因为它没有获得分支机构参与的联合防御小组其他成员的单独同意. 发现两名被告和联合辩护小组的其他成员之间存在“受托关系和隐含的澳博app-委托人关系”, 法院认为，共同防卫组的其他成员是, ”的含义, [the laterals’] ‘former clients’....” 407 F. 增刊. 2d在615. 该澳博app事务所被取消资格，因为法院得出结论，根据新泽西州的规则1，这两名横向澳博app个人被取消资格.根据新泽西州的规则1，这种冲突被归咎于同一家公司的其他澳博app.10. Id. 根据这些规定，未经同意的筛查是无法解决冲突的. Id. at 615-16.
2. 规则1.9 provides: “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent.”
3. 规则1.10 (a)提供:
  While lawyers are associated in a firm, 当规则1禁止任何澳博app单独执业时，任何澳博app均不得在知情的情况下代表客户.7 or 1.9日,除非:
    (1)禁止澳博app个人代理是基于规则1所述澳博app的利益.7(b)(4)，且该利益不会对事务所其他澳博app代理客户产生重大不利影响; or
    (2)规则1允许的.[连续的政府和私人就业]，1.12 [former arbitrator], or 1.18 [duties to prospective client].
4. 规则1.第10(b)款规定:“当一名澳博app与某一事务所有联系时, 律所不得在知情的情况下代表某人处理与…相同的事务, or substantially related to, 澳博app先前所代理的某一委托人的利益对当事人有重大不利影响，并且澳博app事实上已获得受规则1保护的有关当事人的信息.6 that is material to the matter. 如果澳博app参加过以前的代理或在规则1所涵盖的情况下获得信息，则该事务所不被取消资格.6(h)或规则1.18.”
5. 见规则1.0(l) (defining “screened”).
6. 另见备用轮胎第1079-80段(“共同防御协议不是订约方选择创造任何权利的合同, 而是关于被告援引普通法规定的特权的书面通知. 因此，联合防御协议不能提供比其所依据的法律特权更大的保护. 一份旨在这样做的共同辩护协议并没有准确地规定签署协议的被告将得到的保护. In the present case, 除非本巡回法院承认的共同辩护特权对作为共同辩护协议当事人的澳博app施加了忠诚义务, 拟议协议中规定的忠诚义务除了错误地告知被告其权利的实际范围外，将不起任何作用.”) (footnote omitted)
7. 看到id. 在1083(“如果任何签署协议的被告决定与政府合作，并在控方的案件中作证, an attorney for a non-cooperating defendant would be put in the position of cross-examining a witness to whom she owed a duty of loyalty on behalf of her own client, 她也有义务对他忠诚. 这将造成利益冲突，需要撤军.... [T]忠诚义务的存在要求所有不合作被告的澳博app在任何参与的被告决定为政府作证的情况下退出案件.”).
8. 在某些司法管辖区，同意必须以书面形式或以书面形式确认. 看,e.g. ABA示范规则1.7(b)(4)和1.9(a). 而D.C. 规则并不要求弃权必须是书面的(见规则1).7 cmt. 28), 本委员会建议“为了保护澳博app和委托人，应提前书面作出放弃.” D.C. 法律道德 Opinion 309 (2001).
9. 看到 also ABA Formal Opinion 95-395, 曾在联合辩护联盟中代表客户的澳博app的义务(1995)(而澳博app“几乎肯定对联盟的其他成员负有信托义务”... [h]他不会, 然而, owe an ethical obligation to them, 因为《澳博app》根本没有规定这种义务.”).
10. Conflicts arising under 规则1.如果“(1)每个可能受影响的客户都提供知情同意”，则可以豁免第7(b)条...; and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected clients.规则1.7(c). 在这种情况下, 当然, 非委托人联合辩护小组成员不是第1条要求其同意的“受影响的委托人”.7(c). 然而, law independent of the 规则 may require the lawyer to get a release of some kind before the lawyer may begin a representation that would otherwise be prohibited by the joint defense agreement. If the terms of that release impose any material limitations on the lawyer’s representation of the client in the proposed matter– such as prohibiting the lawyer from using on the client’s behalf relevant confidential information of which the lawyer is aware– 规则1.7(c)将要求客户就该事项获得知情同意. 如果释放条款对澳博app提议的代理有太多限制, 澳博app将无法满足规则1.7(c)(2)要求他或她“合理地相信[]澳博app将能够提供称职和勤勉的代理....在这种情况下，澳博app将不得不拒绝代理.
11. 严格地说, a screen is not necessary if the personally disqualified lawyer avoids participation in the new matter and does not reveal any confidential information about the prior matter to the lawyer’s colleagues, 从而履行澳博app在共同辩护协议下的义务. 然而, 使用屏幕是谨慎的，以提醒个人被取消资格的澳博app他的义务, 提醒相关澳博app注意问题的存在, 并确认他们在筛选澳博app在场时格外小心的承诺.
12. 如果诉讼涉及或对澳博app的前客户有不利影响, 澳博app和公司将被要求根据规则1进行分析.以决定新事项是否可以接受. 如果新客户的代理使前客户因涉嫌违反共同辩护协议而受到联合辩护小组其他成员的索赔，则可能存在对前客户的这种逆境. 另见美国澳博app协会第95-395号正式意见，附注9.