Opinion ID: 4535787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Duty of Loyalty” Approach

Text: USAA also contends that Keller breached the “duty of loyalty” it owed to USAA. Suppl. Br. of Resp’t at 5-6. But there is no separate “duty of loyalty” under RPC 1.9 beyond the test outlined in RPC 1.9. If Keller’s representation of the Pleins violates RPC 1.9(a), it breaches the duty of loyalty. If there were a general duty of loyalty to never litigate against a former client, courts would not need to apply RPC 1.9(a) at all and would not need to assess whether matters are substantially related; disqualification would be automatic any time a lawyer sought to represent a party adverse to a former client. This is clearly not what the RPCs say. E. RPC 1.9(c) Provides Additional Protection for Client Confidences The Pleins acknowledge that RPC 1.9(c) bars Keller from using USAA’s confidences against it. They argue that RPC 1.9(c) imposes this bar without requiring disqualification. Pleins’ Suppl. Br. at 22. We agree. RPC 1.9(c) provides: A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall 23 No. 97563-9 not thereafter: (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client. The Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers interprets this rule to mean that “[e]ven if a subsequent representation does not involve the same or a substantially related matter, a lawyer may not disclose or use confidential information of a former client.” 2 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 132 cmt. f (AM. LAW INST. 2000). The ABA similarly states that this rule “prohibits the use of a former client’s protected information (unless it is generally known) as well as its disclosure, even if the lawyer is not adverse to the former client or the adversity is in a matter which is not substantially related to the prior representation.” ABA Formal Op. 99-415 (1999). Notably, RPC 1.10(a)’s imputation of conflicts applies differently to RPC 1.9(c) than to RPC 1.9(a). RPC 1.9(a) specifically forbids representation of the current client where matters are substantially related. But RPC 1.9(c) forbids only use of confidential information against a former client. It does not forbid representation entirely. RPC 1.10(a) imputes conflicts across a firm when any 24 No. 97563-9 lawyer in the firm “would be prohibited from [representing a client] by Rules 1.7 or 1.9.” Because RPC 1.9(c) does not prohibit representation, confidential client information Hecht may have obtained about USAA that is not substantially related to the Plein matter is not imputed to Smart or Birk through RPC 1.10(a). Rather, RPC 1.9(c) would forbid Hecht herself from using any unrelated confidences she obtained in her representation of USAA against USAA. Neither Smart nor Birk possess any such confidences. Therefore, RPC 1.9(c) does not limit Smart’s or Birk’s representation of the Pleins.