道德意见275
Receipt of Confidential Information 酒吧s Subsequent Representation of Another Client in the Same or a Substantially Related Matter Unless Screen Can Be Erected
*[注:请参阅第275号意见如何受到D .修正案的实质影响.C. 2007年2月1日生效的《靠谱的足球滚球平台》
A law firm which is contacted by a potential class action plaintiff and which receives confidential or secret information from 潜在客户 may not, 在靠谱的滚球平台事务所和潜在客户未能就合同条款达成一致后, seek to identify another client to represent in the same or substantially related matter unless the attorneys who received the confidential information from the first potential client can be screened from the subsequent representation or the first potential client consents to the subsequent representation.
适用的规则
- 规则1.6(保密)
- 规则1.10(推定不合格)
调查
A law firm was contacted by a potential client interested in serving as a representative of a plaintiff class in a contingent fee antitrust class action. 潜在客户和事务所的靠谱的滚球平台就客户索赔可能依据的事实进行了讨论, 潜在客户向本所提供了大量与客户索赔有关的材料. 这些材料大多是公开的, 诉状的由诉讼诉状组成的, 政府监管机构的公开报告, 报纸上的文章. 然而, not all of the materials were publicly available; some of them consisted of the prospective client’s business records, 对应, 手写的笔记. 客户以书面形式强调，他希望询价公司对他提供给该公司的资料保密.
与潜在客户就费用问题的谈判没有成功, and the law firm now wishes to seek a different person to represent the class on whose behalf the firm could undertake litigation in the same subject area. 这家靠谱的滚球平台事务所已经询问，这样做是否符合其在道德准则下的义务.
讨论
我们分析的出发点是规则1.6，其中部分陈述:
(a) [a]靠谱的滚球平台不得在知情的情况下 . . . (1) reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client; (2) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client to the disadvantage of the client; (3) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person.
(b)“保密”是指根据适用法律受靠谱的滚球平台-当事人保密特权保护的信息, “秘密”指的是在专业关系中获得的客户要求保密的其他信息, 否则泄露出来会很尴尬, 或者可能是有害的, 致客户端.
对规则1的注释[6].第6条进一步指出，靠谱的滚球平台-委托人保密规则不仅适用于委托人私下沟通的事项, 同时也对客户要求的在业务关系中获得的所有信息保密. “这是道德准则 . . . 不考虑信息的性质或来源或他人分享知识的事实而存在.” Id.
靠谱的滚球平台事务所收到了机密信息
The inquiry in this case focuses heavily on the notion that many of the materials presented to the law firm by the first potential client are “publicly available.“因为在公开材料方面没有靠谱的滚球平台-当事人特权, the inquirer contends that there is no ethical proscription against the law firm’s use of those materials in connection with the second representation.
然而，道德保密规则比靠谱的滚球平台-当事人保密特权更广泛. 看到 规则1.6、评论[5]和[6]. 该规则还保护“秘密”,这可能包括客户向靠谱的滚球平台透露的信息，但客户要求对这些信息保密. 理由如下, 我们的结论是, 关于这次调查的具体事实, the confidentiality rule prevents the inquiring attorneys from seeking or accepting a second representation on behalf of the class that was identified for the law firm by the first potential client.
第一个, the facts of the inquiry before us argue strongly that the inquiring lawyers have bound themselves to keep the information divulged by the first potential client confidential. 不像靠谱的滚球平台的许多其他义务，只有在靠谱的滚球平台-客户关系完全形成后才会出现, 靠谱的滚球平台的保密义务从潜在客户咨询靠谱的滚球平台的那一刻起就开始了. 规则1.评论[7]. 因此, the fact that 潜在客户 never became an actual client of the inquiring law firm does not release the inquiring law firm from its confidentiality obligations. 其次，并非第一位潜在客户提供的所有信息都是公开的. 在提供给靠谱的滚球平台事务所并经其审查的记录中，有商业记录, 手写笔记, 和信件, 其中没有一个是规则1中使用的“公开可用”的术语.6.
此外, 潜在客户, 在讨论索赔的过程中，他希望在询盘公司的帮助下提出索赔, 向靠谱的滚球平台透露潜在客户通过其他诉讼了解到的事实和情况. 因此, 潜在客户 had paid for assembling and developing material that indicated the potential of a cause of action on behalf of a class of plaintiffs. 潜在客户希望代表集体成为指定原告，并有可能因此获得补偿, 他在书面上明确表示希望律所对他提交的材料保密. 因此，根据我们的规则，这些材料是潜在客户的“秘密”. 因此，询问的靠谱的滚球平台可能不会, 在未能与潜在客户就费用达成协议后, 利用以潜在客户为代价开发的信息，为靠谱的滚球平台事务所或靠谱的滚球平台事务所的后续客户谋取利益.
当然, 靠谱的滚球平台对法律的总体了解是多少啊, 关于一个特定行业如何运作, or about how legal principles may apply to certain kinds of cases in the course of doing professional work for a client may be used by the lawyer in representing another client. 看到 我们的意见不. 175 (1986).1 The general principles announced there do not apply to this case because the law firm in this inquiry is not proposing to use general knowledge, 而是希望使用一组特定的事实，这些事实引起了公司的注意，部分是由潜在客户开发的. 这些事实的集合和呈现是第一个潜在客户努力的结果. To allow the firm to appropriate that knowledge and exploit the specific body of information assembled by 潜在客户 to his detriment is not the sort of generalized use that is contemplated by the principles discussed in Opinion No. 175.
估算的资格
We turn now to the question whether the whole of the inquiring law firm is disqualified because of the contact of some of the firm’s lawyers with the first potential client. 规则1.第10条规定同一公司的所有成员都被取消资格. 该规则没有明确引用规则1.作为导致被取消比赛资格的规则之一, 但新的评论[7]到[9]清楚地表明，规则1之间存在相互作用.第10(a)条和规则1.6. 这些评论明确了律所每位靠谱的滚球平台的忠诚义务, 哪些是根据规则1推算的.10(a), 当个别靠谱的滚球平台从潜在客户那里获得机密信息时会受到牵连吗, 因为规则1.6, 不能与其他客户分享该信息，因为该信息与其他客户的事务有关. The lawyers who met with the first potential client and reviewed his materials would be disqualified from representing a second class plaintiff and, 通过规则1的操作.公司所有的靠谱的滚球平台也会这么做.
然而，1996年11月1日，哥伦比亚特区上诉法院修改了规则1.10(a). 规则1的新附带条款.第10(a)款规定了归责规则的例外情况, which would otherwise disqualify all lawyers in the law firm from representing a client simply because a single lawyer or a specific group of lawyers in the firm acquired confidential information during an initial interview with a prospective client. 因此, 即使公司不能与现有或未来的公司客户分享潜在客户的机密信息, in those situations where the integrity of the confidential information can be maintained by walling off the lawyer or lawyers who interviewed the prospective client, 公司可以继续代理其现有客户，也可以在同一事件中获得其他不利客户.
But the new proviso does not cover the present inquiry because the inquiring firm cannot now effectively wall off the lawyers who consulted with the first potential client. 根据我们了解的事实, 考虑到从最初的面试到费用谈判结束的时间(几个月), 太多的靠谱的滚球平台(实际上是整个诉讼部门)都接触到了潜在客户的机密信息, and too many discussions around the firm had occurred before the firm broke off its negotiations with 潜在客户 to make walling off a practical and effective solution. 因此，询盘公司不能利用规则1的新例外.10.
We believe that the law firm must honor its confidentiality obligations to the first potential client and must refrain from seeking a second client to initiate the very same litigation that was presented to it by the first client, 没有第一个客户的弃权声明. 即使第二个客户在没有采取任何主动的情况下找到该公司，同样的结果也可能适用. The information that the firm received from the first potential client is: (1) protected by the confidentiality rule; (2) directly relevant to the representation of the second client; but (3) may not be used by the law firm or revealed to the second client, 可以想象，这种限制可能会违反公司对第二位客户的热情和忠诚义务. 此外, the use of the confidential information in the representation of the second client would arguably disadvantage the first potential client who wishes to be the class representative, 因此违反了规则1.6(a)(2).
调查没有. 96-11-32
通过:1997年11月19日
1. 另见规则1的评注[10].7, 它指出:“两个客户是商业竞争对手的事实, 独自站立, 通常不是同时代理的障碍吗.同样的原则也适用于顺序表示.
