It has been noted that attorneys from the same office have an association that is so close that they should be prohibited from appearing on opposite sides of the same case. There should be no common supervising authority controlling the action by the legal services attorney with respect to litigation cases, and there must be no regular exchange of information between the office concerning particular cases. In other words, the independence of the attorneys on the case must be guarded and the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship in each case must be assured. Third, and probably the aspect that gave most concern to the minority opinion on the Committee, the circumstances should indicate no apparent impropriety. The Rule that disqualification of one attorney of a firm generally constitutes a disqualification of all affiliated attorneys is a 1ong established and well recognized Rule.
Some early cases refuse to make any exception for legal services organizations.
Other cases have found a basis to distinguish a legal aid society from a private law firm. The cases and opinions that deal with this qualification under DR 5-105 make fairly clear the circumstances or factors which warrant relaxation in the application of imputed disqualification under that Rule. There is no appearance of significant impropriety. Hence, the majority of the Committee felt that representation of opposing parties by DPLS lawyers from different offices is an acceptable response to a difficult situation if the circumstances above expressed are maintained. But, as expressed above, the majority also felt that a preferable solution, where feasible, would be to have the organized Bar provide representation to the second party pro bono.