Top Law Schools

.

Not legal advice.

My read of this DC Bar ethics opinion (sorry for the weird formatting, their site is a mess right now) is that you're fine because you're not involved in the litigation, this sort of personal conflict isn't imputable to different lawyers, and there's no suggestion that you're only being hired because you'd possess inside info about the case. The opinion also suggests that if you ask a partner and they okay it, you're in the clear (even if it turns out not to be okay). But that's DC, which may have different rules from your jurisdiction! (And I may be misreading this opinion.)

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:09 pm

Question for anyone who has run across this:

I saw an in-house position at a company I am interested in applying to. My firm is currently representing a party that is adverse to the company with the in-house position. I am not involved in the litigation. But do conflict rules generally prohibit me from taking the in-house position without my firm's client waiving a conflict? Just trying to decide if I should even pitch in an application.

My company once hired an attorney from a firm we were adverse to, though the attorney had no dealings with the litigation. We did a "Chinese wall" to prevent them from having access to case files and could not discuss the case with them.