proRo class 10

rule 1.7(a)
comment 24

see "may we do both cases?" problem.

how to analyze this positional conflict, and what arguments to bring
to its un/ethicalness:
1. state court v. fed court -- different jurisdictions, and so there is no
binding authority
    however, if a powerful judge like posner writes the opinion, it may
    be very persuasive
** inconsistent positions is not ordinarily problematic (see comment 24),
   but if either case is appealed and goes to SCOTUS, then there is a
   possible problem.

fiandaca
the possibility of representing the women's prisoner class comes up. what do you do?
-- can you say, "another lawyer in another office is handling the other client. so there's
no problem?" NO, it's imputed rule 1.10
-- where do you start with determining if there's an ethical problem?
see rule 1.7
-- is it (a)(1) or (2)? (a)(2): there's a risk that representation of one class will be
materially limited by representation of the other class

is the fact that the state came up with this so late suspicious? see p.XX

you might run into rule 4.2 problems (no contact rule)

rule 1.10 imputations
exceptions 1.10(a)(1)
where managing partner at a small firm had a major investment in a company,
if the managing partner would be precluded from representing a client
with interests adverse to that company, it's possible that other attorneys at that
firm would too.

rule 1.9
is this person who's interests pose a possible conflict a present or a former client?
is the issue the same matter as the one on which you represented the former client?
if it isn't the same, is it "substantially related"?
are the present clients interests materially adverse to the former client?
if they are the same and materially adverse, has the lawyer sought and
obtained the former client's consent in writing?

hypo.
almond v. star
if we were discussing conflicts as to star, what rule would apply?
-- rule 1.7, materially limiting conflict

if you decide almond is a former client, is the matter the same or
substantially related?
-- rule 1.9 comment 3

rule 1.9(b)
rule 1.10
rule 1.9(a)

rule 1.9(a) is the key to unlocking the above rules, and inquiries related to it.

1. a lawyer who stays at firm A: can that lawyer represent a new client Z in
the same or sub related manner that the firm had represented client Y who
has materially adverse interests but is gone? this is a 1.9(a) inquiry

2. a lawyer moves from firm A to firm B: can that lawyer represent client X
in the same or sub rel matter in which the firm A had represented another
client Y whose interests are materially adverse to client X's interests and
about whom the lawyer had received confidential information before
leaving the firm? this is a 1.9(b) inquiry