Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Screening paralegals may avoid conflict problem

By Karen Rubin on July 23, 2014
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Can a non-lawyer staff member who joins your firm bring with her a conflict of interest that may be imputed to your firm and disqualify you from representing your client?  It can happen.

In this age of employment mobility, staff members may come to your firm after having worked for opposing counsel on cases (or transactions) that you are handling.  The staffer’s exposure to the other side’s confidential information can raise a conflict of interest that knocks you and your whole firm out of the box.

Many jurisdictions allow law firms to resolve the potential problem at the front end with an ethical screen.  Georgia has recently joined the list.

In Hodge v. URFA-Sexton, LP, the Georgia Supreme Court noted that the majority of courts reject the idea that non-lawyer conflicts are automatically imputed to the rest of the firm.  Rather, most jurisdictions now allow firms to raise a screen to protect the confidential information that a non-lawyer has gained during prior employment.

This made sense to the Hodge court for several reasons:

  • Non-lawyers lack a financial interest in the outcome of litigation, and don’t have a choice about what clients they serve;
  • Non-lawyers have different training and responsibilities, and a different level of access to confidential information than lawyers do;
  • Disqualifying a firm based on a staff member’s conflict of interest works a hardship to the new firm’s client; and
  • A rule of automatic imputation would unduly restrict non-lawyer employment mobility.

Interestingly, Georgia limits screening as a way to avoid imputed conflicts of interest — only former public sector employees, arbitrators and judges (and now non-lawyers) can be screened in order for the firm to avoid being disqualified.

In Ohio, non-lawyer screening was approved in Green v. Toledo Hospital, where the Ohio Supreme Court held that imposing the presumption that a secretary who worked for opposing counsel shared in client confidences would “unfairly taint” her.  Applying the presumption would make it particularly difficult for non-lawyer personnel in small towns, where the pool of available employers (and employees) is limited.

Other jurisdictions have adopted similar rules, either via ethics opinions or decisional law, including the District of Columbia, New York, Florida, Nevada and Oklahoma.

When a non-lawyer staff member migrates to your firm, remember that you may need to consider a timely ethical screen in order to prevent a costly disqualification headache.

Photo of Karen Rubin Karen Rubin

Karen is a member of Thompson Hine’s business litigation group. She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair of…

Karen is a member of Thompson Hine’s business litigation group. She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair of the Ohio State Bar Association’s Ethics Committee. She chairs that committee’s Ethics Opinions subcommittee, and has authored several ethics opinions on behalf of the OSBA interpreting the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, teaching legal ethics.

Read more about Karen RubinEmailKaren's Linkedin ProfileKaren's Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Ethics & Professional Responsibility
  • Blog:
    The Law for Lawyers Today
  • Organization:
    Thompson Hine LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo