Opinion ID: 2383565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Imputed Disqualification.

Text: Associates objects to the court's application of M.Bar. R. 3.4(b)(3)(i) to disqualify Singer by virtue of his prior association with Csaplar & Bok. Associates argues that the trial court's application of the imputed disqualification rule is too rigid. Associates asks that we treat the rule of imputed disqualification as creating a rebuttable presumption, allowing attorneys like Singer to produce evidence that they were not exposed to any confidential information regarding the prior representation. Associates argues that this modification of the rule is necessary to prevent absurd applications that would severely limit the ability of clients to choose counsel and the ability of attorneys to change law firms. The language of M.Bar. R. 3.4(b)(3)(i) is clear: because Goldstein has been disqualified under one of the rules,  no lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer's firm, may commence or continue such representation. (emphasis added). There is no room in that language allowing Singer to rebut a presumption that he was privy to privileged, confidential information. In addition, the other reasons supporting Rule 3.4(d)(3)(i) client's expectations of loyalty, public perception of the legal profession, and preservation of the integrity of the judiciarywould require Singer's disqualification even if he were allowed a rebuttal. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.