In New York: “Judicial Ethics Opinion 23-44” —

• “(1) For two years after the representation is completely terminated and all fees are paid, a judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, from all matters in which an attorney who personally represented the judge appears before the judge, and the judge must disclose the former representation when other attorneys from the same law firm appear before the judge.”
• “(2) Where the judge serves in a court with appellate jurisdiction, and their former counsel seeks leave to participate as amicus curiae in a case during that two-year period, the judge may not vote on their ex-counsel’s application. If the application is granted by the judge’s colleagues, the judge thereafter must not participate in the appeal unless it is practicable in the judge’s court to make full disclosure on the record or, where applicable, offer an opportunity for remittal of the judge’s disqualification.”
• “(3) On a motion to submit an amicus brief, a judge without conflict may vote to approve or to deny the motion based on the merits of the brief and the value of its submission, in accordance with any applicable law or rules that govern such decisions. However, the judge should not consider potential practical impacts from other judges’ anticipated disqualification unless applicable law, rules, or administrative orders permit the judge to do so.”
• “We have previously advised that a judge’s obligations with respect to a former client remain the same whether that former client appears as a party or as an amicus curiae (see Opinion 18-46 [noting it “does not change the analysis”]).”
• “Here, the same principles apply. The inquiring judge serves in a court with appellate jurisdiction, and the judge’s former counsel seeks leave to participate as amicus curiae in a case during that two-year period. Under such circumstances, we conclude that the judge may not vote on their former counsel’s application.”
• “If the application is granted by the judge’s colleagues, the judge thereafter must not participate in the appeal, unless it is practicable in the judge’s court to make full disclosure on the record or, where appropriate, offer an opportunity for remittal of the judge’s disqualification.”
• “The judge’s second question envisions a scenario where one or more other judges on the same appellate court or appellate panel have a conflict involving a particular proposed amicus curiae. In essence, the judge asks if it is ethically permissible, when deciding an application for leave to participate as amicus curiae, to consider another judge’s likely disqualification if it is granted.”
• “In our view, it could potentially create an appearance of impropriety and undermine the court’s appearance of neutrality and independence if a judge were to consider whether granting the application would require certain colleagues to disqualify from the matter. Accordingly, the judge should not consider potential procedural or staffing impacts from other judges’ anticipated disqualification unless applicable law, rules, or administrative orders permit the judge to do so.”

In Rhode Island: “Attorneys – Disqualification – Probate matter” —

• “Where an attorney who represented a client in a probate matter following the death of the client’s mother has joined a law firm that represented the decedent’s estate, the attorney is disqualified from working on remaining trust-related matters unless the former client removes the disqualification by giving written informed consent.”
• ““It is the Panel’s opinion that: (1) the inquiring attorney is disqualified from working on the remaining matters related to the trust; (2) however, the former client may remove the disqualification by giving his or her written informed consent to the representation; and (3) if the former client does not provide such consent, no lawyer in the inquiring attorney’s new law firm may work on the remaining matters related to the trust unless the inquiring attorney is screened from the matter, and the former client is informed in writing of the nature of the former representation and is given a description of the screening procedures emplaced.”
• “…The former client’s interests are materially adverse to those of the decedent’s estate because the former client had a beneficiary interest in the estate that was subsequently extinguished by an amended estate plan executed by the decedent. Based on these facts, the Panel finds that the inquiring attorney is disqualified from representing the decedent’s estate pursuant to Rule 1.9(a).”
• “…Relevant here is Rule 1.10(c), which applies because the inquiring attorney has moved to a new law firm. … Under this Rule, no lawyer of the new law firm may represent a person in a matter in which the inquiring attorney is disqualified under Rule 1.9, unless two (2) conditions are met. Therefore, should the former client not consent to the inquiring attorney’s representation of the decedent’s estate, the Panel finds that no lawyer in the inquiring attorney’s new law firm may represent the decedent’s estate unless the following occurs.”
• “First, the inquiring attorney must be ‘timely screened from any participation in the matter and … apportioned no part of the fee therefrom.’ Rule 1.10(c)(1). Rule 1.0(k) defines ‘screened’ to mean ‘the isolation of a lawyer from any participation in a matter through the timely imposition of procedures within a firm that are reasonably adequate under the circumstances to protect information that the isolated lawyer is obligated to protect under these Rules or other law.'”
• “Second, the former client must be given prompt written notice enabling him or her to determine the firm’s compliance with Rule 1.10(c)… Comment [8] to Rule 1.10 clarifies that such notice should contain ‘a description of the screened lawyer’s prior representation and of the screening procedures employed[, and] generally should be given as soon as practicable after the need for screening becomes apparent.'”

“Law Firms Wrestle With How Much to Tell Clients About AI Use” —

• “Generative artificial intelligence promises to make legal work faster and more efficient, but it also poses a quandary for law firms: Should they tell clients they’re using the technology?”
• “Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton hasn’t reached a definite conclusion on disclosure and will follow what clients want, managing partner Michael Gerstenzang said. But ‘there’s no circumstance in which I could imagine using it on a not fully-disclosed basis,’ he added.”
• “The disclosure question is starting to come up in law firm conversations with clients. It raises other questions for in-house and outside counsel—including whether certain uses of AI need to be disclosed, but not others, and whether an engagement letter is the best place for a firm to make disclosures.”
• “State bar associations are weighing in. Earlier this month, the California Bar adopted guidance advising lawyers to consider disclosing AI’s use. The Florida Bar in a draft ethics opinion recommended lawyers get clients’ informed consent before using generative AI ‘if the utilization would involve the disclosure of any confidential information.'”
• “Lawyers’ existing duties of confidentiality and competence sufficiently cover obligations while using AI tools, said Katherine Forrest, a partner at Paul Weiss, a former US District Court judge, and the author of two books about AI and the law.”
• “But disclosing AI use isn’t ‘necessarily a bad thing, and it may in fact be prudent during this interim phase, while we’re all getting used to this new transformed world with new tools,’ Forrest said.”
• “Generative AI is increasingly baked into the technology lawyers touch every day, such as Microsoft Corp.’s AI Copilot, which is available in Word, and many common legal research tools.”
• “AI disclosure will most likely appear in engagement letters, but firms are watching for clients to take the lead.”
• “Gerstenzang, the Cleary managing partner, said he expects client expectations on disclosure to dictate conversations about AI’s use and whether disclosure appears in engagement letters. The firm is already talking to clients about AI, he said.”
• “Use of generative AI isn’t currently part of Paul Weiss’ standard engagement letter, Forrest said. The firm has clients who have asked it not to use generative AI without communicating with them, she said.”