Imputation of Conflicts (MR 1.10)
Professional Responsibility · Lesson 11
Imputation of Conflicts (MR 1.10)
這一課問的是：衝突是否歸屬全公司？屏蔽能否避免歸屬？
ActorActObjectStandardConsequence
Issue · what this lesson is really about
Are conflicts imputed to other lawyers in the firm — and can screening avoid imputation?
這一課問的是：衝突是否歸屬全公司？屏蔽能否避免歸屬？
Trigger words & phrases that should flag this issue:
imputedscreenfirmwalltainted
Core Terminology · 7 must-know
Tap a card to flip and reveal the meaning.
MR 1.10
Tap to see meaning
Imputation of conflicts to firm.
MR 1.10。
general imputation
Tap to see meaning
Conflicts generally imputed to all lawyers in firm.
一般歸屬。
personal interest exception
Tap to see meaning
Conflicts arising from lawyer's personal interest may not be imputed if no significant risk.
個人利益例外。
former client screening
Tap to see meaning
Screened lawyer + notice may avoid imputation (MR 1.10(a)(2)).
前客戶屏蔽。
government lawyer
Tap to see meaning
MR 1.11: special imputation rules.
政府律師。
written notice
Tap to see meaning
Required for screening.
書面通知。
Rule Sentence · the workhorse
Under MR 1.10(a), while lawyers are associated in a firm, none shall represent a client when any one would be prohibited from doing so under MR 1.7 or 1.9; effective screening of the lawyer with the conflict, with written notice, may avoid imputation in former-client situations under MR 1.10(a)(2).
Sentence Anatomy · 5 roles, 5 colors
Every rule sentence breaks into five visual roles.
Actor 行為人law firm律師事務所
Act 行為representing despite member conflict儘管成員有衝突仍代理
Object 對象client matter客戶事件
Standard 法律標準MR 1.10 + screening exceptionMR 1.10 + 屏蔽例外
Consequence 後果imputation or avoidance歸屬或避免
Casebook Snapshot · a real American case
Cromley v. Board of Education
Holding. Effective screening of a tainted lawyer — including notice to the affected former client — may avoid imputation under MR 1.10 in former-client situations; screening must be timely and rigorous.
Why it matters. Cromley illustrates the screening mechanism — timing and rigor are key.
Cromley：及時嚴格之屏蔽可避免歸屬。
Common Mistakes · what trips students
✗ screening 自動 cures 所有 imputation。
✓ Limited to former-client and government scenarios.
僅限前客戶與政府情況。
Mini IRAC · build the Application
Issue. May firm F represent client B against client A, where partner P (who represented A in a substantially related matter) has been effectively screened?
Rule. Under MR 1.10(a)(2), conflict from a lawyer's prior representation of a former client may be avoided by effective screening of that lawyer plus written notice to the former client.
Application (model). P represented A previously in a substantially related matter; F screened P (no participation in current matter) and gave A written notice. Because MR 1.10(a)(2) permits screening + notice to avoid imputation in former-client situations, the fact that P was screened from the new matter and A received written notice means F may proceed without violating imputation.
Pick the right element for each blank:
g1.
g2.
Conclusion. Therefore, F may represent B with proper screening.
MBE Check · multiple choice
Lawyer L joins firm F. L previously represented client A in matter X. Firm F now represents B in matter substantially related to X. Without screening, may F continue?
Practice Drill · tap to build the rule
Drop the chips here in correct order:
Tap chips to add → tap chips in the target to remove: