“New York City Bar Association adds guidance to ‘safe harbor’ conflict of interest rule for new hires” —

• “After the New York City Bar Association issued ethics guidance last year that created a new workaround for conflicts of interest that arise when attorneys move law firms, its Professional Ethics Committee followed up last week with a clarification of the rule.”
• “The rule allows law firms to avoid having a new hire’s conflicts of interest affect the rest of the firm by preventing the attorney from working, discussing, or profiting from cases involving their former clients and notifying the former client in writing — rather than obtaining a conflict waiver, as previously required.”
• “But the Professional Ethics Committee wanted to clarify some key exceptions to the new rule that will save law firms complications in court.”
• “A keystone rule of professional conduct is that a lawyer ordinarily cannot work on both sides of a legal matter. When a lawyer switches firms, he may bring with him conflicts from his previous firm. If the lateral hire was working for one side of a negotiation, for instance, they cannot change firms, then start working for the other side in the same negotiation. That rule doesn’t just apply to the hire but the entire law firm that he’s joining.”
• “Up until last year, the only way around that conflict was through a waiver that the client would have to agree to, indicating that the firm can represent the other party as long as the lawyer promises not to reveal confidential information. “
• “The new rule provides a shortcut, referred to as a ‘safe harbor,’ in which the new hire alone is blocked from being involved with clients on the other side of a conflict of interest. That means they cannot work on a case, talk about it, have access to the case file, and/or profit from it. “
• “The idea is that waivers are more restrictive and harder to attain than merely screening the new hire. The safe harbor rule applies to conflicts arising from past work, except in scenarios where the attorney had high-level management of decision-making authority.”
• “For instance, a firm cannot use the new screening method and must ask for a formal conflict waiver if the matter involves an active litigation, arbitration, or a formal dispute process that the lawyer worked on before moving, and the lawyer had substantial, day-to-day management or decision-making responsibility over that litigation. If for instance, the lawyer was a lead partner as opposed to a junior associate doing basic document review, the firm would still have to file a waiver.”
• “When safe harbor applies, the law firm must notify the former client that it is screening its new hire within a ‘prompt’ time frame.”
• “One goal of the notification process is to prevent conflicts of interest from arising in court and derailing litigation. ‘Let’s say that the lateral did screen, but the other side says, ‘Well, wait a second, you were in charge of this matter, so under the New York rule, you fall within the exception to the exception. You’re not entitled to the safe harbor.’’ Salzman said. ‘Then, typically in a litigation context, the opponent would complain to the judge and move to disqualify the law firm, and then the judge would have to rule on whether the law firm ought to be disqualified or not.'”
• Opinion: here.

“Do I have a conflict? Case law reveals some practical ways to know” —

• “One of the most anxiety-riddled words for a busy lawyer juggling an existing caseload while onboarding new clients is ‘conflict.’ Raising the specter of competing interests and divided loyalties is a surefire way to capture the attention of any lawyer, because duties to clients are paramount. Yet in a world where lawyers switch firms frequently, building a portfolio rather than settling down in one place for a career, the question of conflict is common. Fortunately, case law interpreting current rules of professional conduct continues to shed light as a practical matter on how to determine whether a conflict exists.”
• “Contact is not automatically conflict In the recent (2026) case of Munger Hortifrut North America v. Dan Drake Enterprises (Munger), a company that was embroiled in ongoing litigation sought to disqualify the law firm of opposing counsel after an associate who had previously taken part in two depositions switched firms to briefly join the law firm representing the opposing party in the case. Regarding investment of time, the associate had logged slightly more than 21 hours on the case, but her new position at the firm of the opposition focused on unrelated areas of law and was in a different office. When the new law firm learned about the potential conflict, they promptly executed measures to prevent any contact or information exchange between the new associate and the litigation team. Further, they ended up terminating her within 10 days.” [Decision: Here.]
• “The Superior Court of Kern County reviewing the facts denied a disqualification motion. It found no evidence the associate had shared confidential information with the attorneys in the new firm or had any substantive communication with the litigation team after joining the firm. The court also cited the immediate steps the firm took to isolate the associate, including erecting an ethical screen, and concluded there was no disclosure of confidential information.”
• “The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, incorporating the current California Rules of Professional Conduct, held that after the associate was terminated, disqualification of the entire firm would only be required if attorneys who remained at the firm were in possession of material, confidential information derived from the associate’s prior representation of the opposing party. Because the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding that no such information had been disclosed, it affirmed the order denying disqualification.”
• “In addition to rule 1.9, considering the frequency with which modern lawyers switch firms over the years, lawyers and law firm managing partners are also wise to consider rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients, which in paragraph (a), prohibits lawyers from representing clients in circumstances where the representation is ‘directly adverse’ to another of the lawyer’s client in the same or a separate matter. There are exceptions and caveats within rule 1.7 as in the other conflict of interest rules which should be considered generally as well.”
• “Particularly with large law firms spanning different jurisdictions, hiring lawyers from other firms requires diligent screening. This involves active engagement between the lawyers themselves, as well as the managing partners and supervisors at the law firms in question. (See rule 5.1 Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers and rule 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer).”
• “Munger provides useful guidance on the limits of imputed conflicts with lateral hires, as well as the types of settings and circumstances where diligent screening procedures may be effective. A few important takeaways, particularly in a jurisdiction where lateral hires are common: ask questions early and often and have a list of common questions modeled after the relevant ethical rules at the ready, because they will be relevant in every case. In this fashion, lawyers and law firms can greatly increase the chances of providing conflict-free representation that is engaging, effective and ethical.”