1. Problem pp. 347-8 a)Asst. AG in charge of state securities div. leaves and joins private firm, is asked to represent P in suit against D for sec. law violation; sec. div. was investigating D before AAG left (1) would AAG be disq. by MRPC 1.9(a or b)? (2) if not, is she limited by MRPC 1.11? How? Why? (A) did she “personally and substantially participate” in the same matter as AAG? Cf. Sofaer, p.380, and Kovacevic, n. 1 p. 387

2. Question (a) p. 375-6 c’t’d (B) did she acquire confidential gov’t information about D as AAG, which could be used to D’s material disadvantage? MRPC 1.11(c), with definition! (C) has agency given informed consent (confirmed in writing)? (i) skepticism about agency consent – what are the problems? Who makes the decision to consent or not? What motivations might they have?

3. Problem pp. 347-8 c’t’d (b) Assume instead that P consults Day, one of ex-AAG’s partners. Can Day undertake the representation? Under what circumstances? See Kovacevic, n. 1 p. 387 (1) is AAG disqualified? If not, what problem? (2) timely screening (same as 1.10)? (3) Written notice to gov’t agency?

4. Problem pp. 375-6 c’t’d (c) Suppose what Croft or Day is asked to do is represent D (Armstrong) in an action brought by agency, on a similar charge relating to another land development not yet under investigation by agency when she left (1) same matter? MRPC 1.11(d)(1) (2) “substantially related” matter w/n 1.9? If so, is Croft disqualified on that ground? (3) personal and substantial participation by Croft?

5. Problem p. 375-6 c’t’d (d) Suppose the private client is not Armstrong but Peter Pike, not known to be involved before Croft left, but now sued as a co-conspirator with Armstrong (1) same matter? (2) personal and substantial participation by Croft?

6. Further issues of GAs  MRPC 1.11(d) deals with conflicts of interest of a current gov’t attorney  no participation in matter in which they participated personally and substantially in prior private practice or non-governmental employment, w/o consent of the agency!  what about the prior private client? Cf. MRPC 1.9!  no negotiation for private employment w/ party or lawyer for party in a matter in which GA is personally and substantially participating

7. Further issues of GAs  MRPC 1.12 extends most rules of 1.11 to former judges and other third-party neutrals  Most government agencies are subject to conflict-of-interest (and other government ethics) rules adopted under other law (constitution, statute, regulation) which will likely control over the lawyers’ rules