It will be good for the PHL to adopt a similar ethical view as the one described in the article below.
"x x x.
Conflict of Lawyer Doing Outsourced Work Will Not Be Imputed to Firm That Pays Her
By Kirk Swanson
A law firm representing the plaintiff in a lawsuit is not subject to imputed disqualification based on the fact that it outsources work to a lawyer who formerly represented the defendant in the same litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida decided Oct. 5 (Brown v. Florida Dep't of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, N.D. Fla., No. 4:09-cv-171-RS-CAS, 10/5/12).
Judge Richard Smoak determined that the former government lawyer--who has not had any involvement with the plaintiff in this matter--is not “associated” with the plaintiff's law firm under their working arrangement. Therefore, he said, the provisions on imputed disqualification in Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.10 and 4-1.11 are not triggered.
The court stressed that simply denominating a working relationship as “outsourcing” is not the deciding factor. “Determining whether an attorney is associated or unassociated requires an analysis of all the circumstances,” it said.
In nearly identical opinions issued the same day, the court also refused to disqualify the plaintiffs' law firm in several cases, based on the outsourced-work lawyer's former representation of the defendants at a private law firm before she joined the office of the attorney general and prior to her resuming private practice at the outsourcing law firm (Mituma v. Syn-Tech Systems Inc., N.D. Fla., No. 4:11-cv-430-RS-CAS, 10/5/12; Hudson v. Florida Commerce Credit Union, N.D. Fla., No. 4:11-cv-612-RS-CAS, 10/5/12; Roddenberry v. Wakulla County Bd. of County Commissioners,N.D. Fla., No. 4:11-cv-204-RS-CAS, 10/5/12).
x x x."
A law firm representing the plaintiff in a lawsuit is not subject to imputed disqualification based on the fact that it outsources work to a lawyer who formerly represented the defendant in the same litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida decided Oct. 5 (Brown v. Florida Dep't of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, N.D. Fla., No. 4:09-cv-171-RS-CAS, 10/5/12).
Judge Richard Smoak determined that the former government lawyer--who has not had any involvement with the plaintiff in this matter--is not “associated” with the plaintiff's law firm under their working arrangement. Therefore, he said, the provisions on imputed disqualification in Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.10 and 4-1.11 are not triggered.
The court stressed that simply denominating a working relationship as “outsourcing” is not the deciding factor. “Determining whether an attorney is associated or unassociated requires an analysis of all the circumstances,” it said.
In nearly identical opinions issued the same day, the court also refused to disqualify the plaintiffs' law firm in several cases, based on the outsourced-work lawyer's former representation of the defendants at a private law firm before she joined the office of the attorney general and prior to her resuming private practice at the outsourcing law firm (Mituma v. Syn-Tech Systems Inc., N.D. Fla., No. 4:11-cv-430-RS-CAS, 10/5/12; Hudson v. Florida Commerce Credit Union, N.D. Fla., No. 4:11-cv-612-RS-CAS, 10/5/12; Roddenberry v. Wakulla County Bd. of County Commissioners,N.D. Fla., No. 4:11-cv-204-RS-CAS, 10/5/12).
x x x."
