Ethics Opinion 343
Application of the “Substantial Relationship” Test When Attorneys Participate in Only Discrete Aspects of a New Matter
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter is prohibited from representing another person in the same or substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, 除非前客户知情同意. Two matters are “substantially related” to one another if there is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation is useful or relevant in advancing the client’s position in the new matter. 在某些条件下, 澳门赌场官网可以限制新代理的范围，使通常在先前事务中获得的事实信息在法律上与当前客户在新事务中的地位的提升无关. Specifically, by agreeing only to represent a client as to a discrete legal issue or with respect to a discrete stage in the litigation, a lawyer may be able to limit the scope of the representation such that the new matter is not substantially related to the prior matter. Restrictions on the scope of the representation that effectively ensure that there is no substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would be useful or relevant to advance the client’s position in the new matter may, 在某些情况下, 足以避免利益冲突.
Applicable Rules
- Rule 1.2(代理范围)
- Rule 1.9(利益冲突:前客户)
- Rule 1.10(推定取消资格:一般规则)
Inquiry
We have received a number of inquiries that present the general question whether lawyers may limit their participation in a matter in such a way that the current matter is not substantially related to a prior matter in which they represented a former client whose interests are adverse to those of the current client. In other words, even though the overall representation of the current client may be substantially related to the prior representation, we have been asked whether lawyers may nonetheless limit their own participation in the new representation such that the specific matter on which they are representing the current client is not substantially related to the prior matter in which they had represented the former client.
在考虑这个重要问题时, we find it useful to distinguish between two ways in which a lawyer may be able to limit her participation in a case: First, 客户可能希望澳门赌场官网代表其作为一个独立的法律问题，作为一个更大的法律代理的一部分，其利益与澳门赌场官网的前客户不利, 如果具体的法律问题与澳门赌场官网(或澳门赌场官网的澳门赌场官网事务所)之前代理的前客户的问题完全不同. 例如，Lawyer是专利法方面的专家. 客户聘请澳门赌场官网为客户提供建议并代表客户通过转让从原专利持有人处获得特定专利的所有权利. Sometime later, 客户找澳门赌场官网代理其对公司的专利侵权诉讼. However, Lawyer’s law firm has previously represented Company in a different patent infringement case involving the same underlying technology. 澳门赌场官网告知客户，她不能参与对公司的专利侵权诉讼，但她可以在客户自己的专利是否被适当转让的有限问题上代表客户. In other words, 只有当公司声称客户缺乏以专利未被恰当分配为理由提起侵权索赔的资格时，澳门赌场官网才会代表客户. 客户将聘请其他澳门赌场官网起诉其侵权索赔. 鉴于澳门赌场官网的参与仅限于专利是否被恰当地转让给客户，而不是公司是否侵犯了该专利, D项下是否允许这种有限的代理.C. Rule 1.即使未经公司知情同意? 如果是这样，澳门赌场官网需要考虑哪些预防措施或条件?
Second, 客户可能希望聘请一名澳门赌场官网代表其进入诉讼的一个独立阶段，即提出一个纯粹的法律问题，而不涉及任何事实问题. For example, Lawyer has been asked to represent Client who is interested in filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to challenge a decision of the court of appeals on the grounds that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the particular claim. 在客户对公司提起诉讼的庭审中，澳门赌场官网及其事务所并未代表客户. Some years earlier, other lawyers in Lawyer’s firm had defended Company in litigation involving some of the same facts as the current litigation. 澳门赌场官网建议将其代理客户的范围限制为准备调卷申请, merits briefs, 以及在最高法院进行口头辩论，以提出一个狭隘的上诉管辖权问题. The scope of her representation would be limited to the Supreme Court proceedings; she would not represent Client should the matter be remanded or, for that matter, 是否有任何和解讨论或其他与相关诉讼有关的程序. 其他澳门赌场官网在下级法院的诉讼中代表客户，并将继续参与此案. Lawyer believes that the issues to be presented at this stage of the proceedings are distinct matters of federal law and that nothing that Lawyer’s colleagues might have learned in the prior litigation would be relevant or useful to the legal arguments presented to the Supreme Court. 假定委托人愿意同意限定澳门赌场官网代理的范围, 在这件事上允许澳门赌场官网代表委托人吗, 符合她在《澳门赌场官网》下的义务?
Background
The application of the “substantial relationship” test is one of the most difficult and contentious issues that a lawyer must face when considering whether he or she may represent a client whose interests are adverse to those of a former client. On one hand, 将禁止事项的范围限制在与澳门赌场官网代理前客户的事项相同或实质相关的事项上, D.C. Rule 1.9 makes clear that it does not intend to prohibit all representations that may be adverse to the interest of a former client. In other words, 显然有一些事情——那些与先前的事情既不相同也没有实质性关系的事情——澳门赌场官网可以接受，即使这样做需要推进对前客户不利的利益. 这清楚地反映了一种政策判断，即客户通常应该可以自由选择澳门赌场官网. On the other hand, D.C. Rule 1.9 also reflects the judgment that a lawyer should not be permitted (without the former client’s informed consent) to take on a matter adverse to the interests of the former client when doing so would put the lawyer in a position of using knowledge obtained in the prior representation against the interests of the former client.
D.C. Rule 1.9 provides that “[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 除非前客户知情同意.根据2007年生效的一项新评论, 就本条而言，事项是“实质性相关的”
如果它们涉及相同的交易或法律纠纷或其他情况 一种重大风险，即通常在先前的陈述中获得的机密事实信息将在随后的事项中大大提升客户的地位. . . 关于拥有此类信息的结论可能基于澳门赌场官网向前客户提供的服务的性质以及提供此类服务的澳门赌场官网在通常实践中会了解到的信息.
D.C. Rule 1.9、评论[3](强调添加).
The commentary to D.C. Rule 1.第9条通过参考明确纳入了哥伦比亚特区和联邦判例法关于实质相关性检验的规定, see, e.g., Brown v. 哥伦比亚特区分区调整委员会, 486 A.2d 37 (D.C. 1984) (en banc); T.C. Theatre Corp. v. 华纳兄弟影业, 113 F. Supp. 265 (S.D.N.Y. 1953). D.C. Rule 1.9 .选D.C. Rule 1.保护客户的机密和秘密. See D.C. Ethics Op. 239 (1993). 评论人士一致认为，实质关系检验的功能是保护客户的信心. See Charles W. Wolfram, Former-Client Conflicts, 10 Geo. J. 法律伦理第677期，685-89 (1997). According to Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. and W. William Hodes, “most modern authority holds that ‘substantial relationship’ is itself essentially a shorthand for not abusing the former client’s confidences.” The Law of Lawyering § 13.5 (Aspen 3d ed. 2000).1
哥伦比亚特区关于实质关系检验的主要案例是 Brown v. 哥伦比亚特区分区调整委员会. The Brown 案件涉及同一当事人的一系列交易, the same property, and similar objectives. 请愿者要求取消两名前D.C. 公司法律顾问澳门赌场官网，在政府任职期间曾代表哥伦比亚特区处理涉及该财产的问题. The Brown 意见在很大程度上依赖于分析 西屋电气公司. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 221, 225 (7th Cir. 1978). According to Westinghouse, 当在先前事项中向澳门赌场官网提供的机密客户信息“与针对前客户的未决诉讼中提出的问题相关”时，两个事项将具有实质性关联.”2 Id. at 225. Moreover, when evidence demonstrates that counsel may have had access to information that might be relevant or useful in the second case, “[r]ebuttal evidence must therefore focus on ‘the scope of the legal representation’ involved in each matter and not on the actual receipt of ... information.” Id. 第224页(经批准引用于 Brown, 486 A.2d at 50).
In Brown, 交易之间的事实重叠足以使法院得出结论，认为搬迁方已经建立了取消资格的初步证据, 将反驳推论的负担转移到前公司顾问澳门赌场官网和他们的澳门赌场官网事务所. The court ultimately held that the former government attorneys successfully rebutted the inference by demonstrating that none of the information presented in the earlier proceedings would have benefited the property owner in the current proceeding. Thus, 法院确认了分区上诉委员会的裁决，即不需要取消资格.
哥伦比亚特区法院还有两项相关裁决, 两起案件都涉及前政府官员. In In re Sofaer, 728 A.2d 625 (D.C. 1999), the respondent was disciplined for representing the government of Libya in a matter in which he participated as Legal Advisor of the State Department. The respondent claimed that the substantial-relationship test did not apply because of the limited scope of the current representation. 法院对这一论点的解释如下:
被告坚持认为，他通过限制他代表利比亚的协议条款来避免这种重叠，以便“假设利比亚对[泛美航空103]爆炸事件负有责任”.当然，澳门赌场官网可以在客户同意的情况下限制代理的目标. Rule 1.2(c). 但被告的聘用协议说明了原因, in our view, 限制私人代表很少能成功地避免规则1所解决的收敛.11(a). 同时声明“(本所)的努力将不包括作为诉讼人的实质性活动，而将限于与商定措施相关的活动。, 包括双方同意的意向,协议强调，“只有在你方同意的情况下才会采取措施。.e.(利比亚)事先同意，并且不承认责任”(强调加了)。. 拟议的活动包括“调查事实和法律程序”, preparing legal analyses, 提供法律建议，并提出法律步骤，以处理因泛美航空103号班机被毁而引发的“正在进行的民事和刑事纠纷和诉讼”——所有这些都清楚地体现了澳门赌场官网与客户之间的全面关系. 我们不怀疑被投诉人相信该陈述可以被隔离的诚意, factually and ethically, 从他参与的调查和外交努力中解脱出来. “实质相关”的测试, however, 是为了诱使一名前政府澳门赌场官网在考虑代理澳门赌场官网时宁可谨慎行事. Respondent did not do so.
Id. at 628.
In United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2004), the Government had brought a fraud and RICO suit against nine cigarette manufacturing companies and two tobacco trade associations. 前司法部澳门赌场官网, 在青少年烟草法规制定过程中为FDA和HHS提供法律建议，然后代表政府在法庭上为法规辩护, filed a motion to intervene on behalf of an Australian affiliate of British American Tobacco in the fraud and RICO case. 在裁决政府取消资格的动议时, 法院被说服，前政府澳门赌场官网在食品和药物管理局诉讼中获得的信息将有助于他制定战略和论据来反驳政府的主张, 法院拒绝承认不存在滥用政府信息的风险. Id. at 42-43. Instead, citing the Brown decision, 法院表示，任何涉及与特定机密是否相关的密切问题的案件，都需要取消前政府澳门赌场官网的资格. Id. at 45.3
Discussion
The D.C. 规则一般允许澳门赌场官网, 在客户知情同意的情况下, “限制陈述的目的”.” See Rule 1.2(c).4 我们已明确承认"客户可以, 如果完全知情并自愿同意, 与法律服务提供商签订的有限服务安排合同.” D.C. Ethics Op. 330 (2005). “澳门赌场官网所提供服务的目标或范围可受与委托人的协议或向委托人提供澳门赌场官网服务的条款的限制. 例如，保留器可以用于特定定义的目的.” Rule 1.2, Comment [4]. The Westinghouse and Brown 两份意见均承认，向客户提供代理的范围是决定两件事项是否存在实质性关联的关键因素.
在讨论客户联合代理时，评论[4]至D.C. Rule 1.7解释说，澳门赌场官网可能会限制他们的代理，以避免逆境, 比如同意在一个案件的责任阶段代理多个客户, 但不是在损害赔偿阶段. Other ethics committees and authorities have acknowledged that limiting the scope of representation may eliminate adversity, 这样澳门赌场官网就可以继续代理对前客户不利的客户. See 美国澳门赌场官网协会/美国澳门赌场官网协会澳门赌场官网职业责任手册51:21 21(“通过限制当前代理的范围，以避免与前客户的利益发生冲突，有时可以避免逆境, 只要现在的病人知情同意.”); Wolfram, supra, at 736; see also New York City Bar Op. 2001年至2001年(解释澳门赌场官网可以通过限制对某些索赔的代理或通过帮助客户在可能引起冲突的案件中寻找其他代理来避免逆境).5 《澳门赌场官方软件》同样指出，“澳门赌场官网可以限制后继客户的代理范围，以避免与前一位客户的代理有实质性关联。.《澳门赌场官网法》第132条重述. E (2007). The Restatement illustrates this comment with an example in which a lawyer agrees to restrict the scope of representation of Client B so that confidential information obtained from Client A in a prior representation would not be relevant to the subsequent representation. 有了这一限制，客户B的陈述将不会是不利的.
Both of the categories discussed below present an example of how a lawyer may avoid creating a conflict of interest under D.C. Rule 1.通过参与一个特定问题的离散方面.6 然而，必须注意的是，这些示例呈现的是一组相当理想化的情况. 利益冲突是可以避免的，但事实并非如此, of course, 意味着在澳门赌场官网实际可能面临的一系列特定事实下，这种冲突实际上是可以避免的. We shall, therefore, 在确定冲突是否属于D项下的冲突时，努力确定哪些事实是重要的.C. Rule 1.9个实际上是可以避免的.
A. 仅在个别法律问题上代表客户以限制参与
我们的第一类澳门赌场官网只受雇代表客户处理一个不相关的法律问题. 我们的例子涉及到澳门赌场官网, 客户希望聘请谁来为客户的专利辩护，反对被告公司声称该专利在客户提起诉讼之前没有被适当地转让给客户. Because Lawyer’s law firm had previously represented Company in a different case involving infringement claims based on the same underlying technology, Lawyer has sought to limit the scope of her representation so that she represents Client only on the assignment question. 如果公司侵犯了客户的专利，客户将由其他澳门赌场官网单独代表.7
在某种程度上，澳门赌场官网在诉讼中的参与可以真正限于转让问题, 澳门赌场官网参与诉讼不违反D项.C. Rule 1.9. The matter on which Lawyer represents Client is not substantially related to the matter on which Lawyer’s law firm had previously represented Company. We caution, however, 澳门赌场官网必须确保她对案件的参与不会延伸到专利侵权问题. Indeed, 必须维持完全独立的诉讼小组来处理这个案件的两个方面. 这样的结构很可能是不寻常的, 澳门赌场官网应在征得委托人同意之前解释所有这些情况. But if Client is prepared to accept the costs and inefficiencies that such a rigid and artificial division would require – and assuming, of course, that Lawyer can provide competent representation under these conditions – such a limited representation would not run afoul of D.C. Rule 1.9.
B. 仅在诉讼的离散阶段代表客户限制参与
The second category of ways in which the scope of representation may be limited involves a lawyer’s participation at a discrete stage in litigation. 客户已寻求聘请澳门赌场官网在最高法院对公司的诉讼中具有专业知识，其中唯一的问题是纯粹的法律问题，不依赖于基本的事实记录来解决. Lawyer’s law firm had previously represented Company in a matter that would be considered substantially related to the underlying litigation in this case. In other words, 通常由澳门赌场官网所在澳门赌场官网事务所的澳门赌场官网获得的机密信息，在庭审或评估和解的价值和智慧时，对客户的澳门赌场官网是相关的或有用的. So, 未经公司同意, 澳门赌场官网和她的澳门赌场官网事务所都不能代表委托人出庭. 但问题是，在诉讼的最后阶段，对代理范围的限制是否足以反驳这两者的假设, 与事实相关的事情是, in fact, 在D项含义内彼此“实质上相关”.C. Rule 1.9.
澳门赌场官网和客户一致同意，澳门赌场官网的职责仅限于在挑战下级法院判决时提出联邦管辖权问题. 这是一个纯粹的法律问题，从来不是澳门赌场官网事务所向公司提供的先前陈述的一部分. 鉴于澳门赌场官网代理的范围有限, 没有根据得出结论认为，归责给澳门赌场官网的公司机密信息与澳门赌场官网代表客户的行为相关或有用.8 因为对澳门赌场官网代理范围的限制实际上已经消除了澳门赌场官网使用公司机密信息的任何风险, 我们得出结论，这两件事彼此之间没有实质性的关系，D.C. Rule 1.因此，9不适用.9
However, 我们注意到，即使是在最高法院就看似纯粹的法律问题提起的诉讼中, 机密的事实资料可能对澳门赌场官网有用. 最高法院的案件有时涉及狭隘的程序问题 e.g., 一个案件是否必须在州法院而不是联邦法院审理——或者是关于离散的, threshold legal issues – e.g.例如，某一特定法规是否赋予原告起诉的资格. But, at other times, the cases are about whether a particular party is entitled to prevail on the facts as presented and developed at trial. 即使这些事实在案件到达最高法院时被“冻结”, where a lawyer has (or is presumed to have) relevant information about the underlying facts from a prior representation of the adverse party, D.C. Rule 1.即使她的代理被限制在大法院的诉讼阶段，也有可能被触发. 换句话说，澳门赌场官网是否可以在D项下避免冲突.C. Rule 1.将她的参与限制在诉讼的一个独立阶段将取决于, at least in part, 关于她被要求提出的法律问题的性质. 澳门赌场官网事务所其他澳门赌场官网掌握的保密资料, 这是澳门赌场官网的责任，因此必须被推定为澳门赌场官网的财产, 能证明她论证的方式很重要吗. In such situations, 这些事项确实在实质上是相关的, 除非前客户同意，否则她的代理是不合适的. 但也有一些情况是离散的, 与案件的根本是非曲直无关的法律问题, and we believe that a lawyer’s limiting the scope of her representation to such issues would likely not present a problem under D.C. Rule 1.9. 我们注意到上诉法院在 In re Sofaer, 即使澳门赌场官网真诚地相信他或她的代理“可以被隔离, factually and ethically,的问题, 这种信念可能是错误的. 在这种情况下，“根据其条款，‘实质性相关’检验， ... is meant to induce a ... 澳门赌场官网在考虑辩护时宁可谨慎行事.” 728 A.2d at 628.
* * * * *
Even if it is permissible generally to restrict a representation to avoid substantial overlap with a prior representation, 在特定情况下可能不可能. 私人澳门赌场官网和前政府澳门赌场官网一样，应该“谨慎行事”.” Id.10 我们已经考虑了两种不同的类别，其中澳门赌场官网可以避免D的适用性.C. Rule 1.9 -同意仅就一个独立的法律问题代表客户，并同意就诉讼的一个独立阶段代表客户. 虽然我们认识到这些类别可以, 在适当的条件下, 允许澳门赌场官网在不违反规定的情况下代表客户.C. Rule 1.我们也明白，事实上，澳门赌场官网这样做可能是非常困难的. 如果来自先前陈述的机密信息在新的陈述中可能有用或相关-无论它可能受到限制或限制-那么实质性关系测试是满足的, 未经原客户同意，新的代理不得继续进行.
Inquiry No. 07-03-22
出版日期:2008年2月
1. 《澳门赌场官方软件》指出，代表前客户所采取的法律立场通常不被视为实质性相关事项，除非基本事实也与之相关. 参见《澳门赌场官网法(第三)重述》第132页. D (2007). Thus, for example, 澳门赌场官网可以代表一个客户争辩说，一项法规是符合宪法的，而在不涉及前客户的案件中代表另一个客户则是违宪的.
2. 就像前政府澳门赌场官网一样, 布朗法院扩大了这一标准，认为如果前客户的机密信息在当前的代理中是相关的或有用的，则两件事实质上是相关的. Brown, 486 A.2d at 49.
3. 虽然没有直接关系，但莱克航空有限公司诉. 泛美航空公司，华氏103度.R.D. 22, 38-42 (D.D.C. 1984), 包含了在D的前身下实质性关系检验的适用性的有益讨论.C. Rule 1.9. In Laker Airways, Judge Greene concluded that there was not a substantial relationship between a lawyer’s representation of an airline on matters concerning the general antitrust immunity of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the same lawyer’s later antitrust suit against the same airline for conspiring at an IATA conference to engage in illegal price fixing. 尽管这两种说法都“涉及到国际航空运输协会”, its organization, 运作及活动,格林法官认为，这些事实仅仅是“相似之处”，是“一般和肤浅的”，不足以满足实质关系检验. Id. at 40.
4. 同样，美国澳门赌场官网协会的模型规则1.第2(c)条规定，“澳门赌场官网可以限制代理的范围，如果该限制在当时情况下是合理的，并且客户给予知情同意。.” Cf. D.C. Rule 1.2 cmt. 5 (“An agreement concerning the scope of representation must accord with the 职业行为准则 and other law. Thus, 不得要求客户同意在有限的范围内进行代理，以免违反规则1.1, or to surrender the right to terminate the lawyer’s services or the right to settle litigation that the lawyer might wish to continue.”). 此外，根据D的要求.C. Rule 1.4(b), 澳门赌场官网必须向客户解释有限范围关系的好处和缺点，以便客户有足够的信息就代理作出明智的决定. Cf. ABA Comm. 论伦理与教授责任，正式版. 07-447 (2007).
5. New York City Bar Op. (2001-3)“为了避免与现任或前任客户发生冲突，澳门赌场官网代理客户的范围可能会受到限制, 前提是其业务受限制的客户在充分披露后同意限制，并且对代理的限制不会使澳门赌场官网的辩护不充分或降低代理的热情. 辩护人其代表资格受到限制的澳门赌场官网, however, 必须牢记她对两个客户都有忠诚的责任. 待分割的业务部分是离散的且范围有限的, 这种限制可以很好地解决所出现的冲突.”).
6. 尽管我们确定并讨论了澳门赌场官网如何限制代理范围以避免在D项下产生利益冲突的两个具体例子.C. Rule 1.我们并不是说这是导致这个问题的唯一两种方式.
7. We do not address here the separate issues that could arise when a lawyer’s past work (or the past work of others in the lawyer’s firm) becomes an issue in litigation between the lawyer’s client and a third party and the lawyer is asked to represent the client in such litigation. 这样的表述可能会引起D项下的问题.C. Rule 1.第7(b)(4)条涉及澳门赌场官网自己的业务或个人利益，以及D.C. Rule 3.关于澳门赌场官网作为潜在证人的义务.
8. Although we have been assuming that the confidential information would not be relevant or useful in Lawyer’s representation, 当然，对于澳门赌场官网事务所的其他澳门赌场官网来说，如果他们从以前的案件中了解到这些信息，那么避免卷入最高法院的诉讼是明智的. 虽然这不是我们规定的, 这样的预防措施肯定会使澳门赌场官网更容易证明, for example, 没有秘密和秘密, in fact, D.C. Rule 1.6.
9. 我们这里的结论不适用于同一物质的离散阶段. In other words, if Lawyer’s law firm had represented Company at trial in the same case (as opposed to having represented Company in an entirely separate matter), Lawyer could not argue that she is free to represent the other side against Company in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the issues before the Court are entirely distinct from those on which Lawyer’s colleagues had represented Company at trial. In such a circumstance, we believe that a lawyer who switches sides in the same case (albeit at a later stage where the issues are different) triggers the prohibitions of D.C. Rule 1.9, 无论澳门赌场官网在案件的后续阶段如何限制代理的范围.
10. 我们不打算在本意见中讨论对D项下的前政府澳门赌场官网的具体情况适用实质相关的检验标准的问题.C. Rule 1.11(a). 尽管我们承认，D.C. Rules 1.9 and 1.用同样的术语来描述过去和现在的关系, cases involving the disqualification of former government lawyers also raise concerns about the possible misuse of information obtained under government authority and about actions taken to enhance the government lawyer’s private sector employment prospects. See Brown, 486 A.第2页，第43页，经批准引证菲利普·莫里斯，第312页. Supp. 2d at 38. 鉴于这些和其他问题独特的前政府澳门赌场官网的背景下, 前政府澳门赌场官网是否可以限制其后续代理的范围，从而避免D项下的利益冲突，这个问题我们留待日后讨论.C. Rule 1.11(a).
