Executive Director’s Message a claim on behalf of a private client may not pursue the claim on behalf of the government, except when authorized to do so by paragraph (d). Rule 1.10 is not applicable to the conflicts of interest addressed by these paragraphs. [4] Where the successive clients are a public agency and a private client, the risk exists that power or discre-tion vested in public authority might be used for the special benefit of a private client. A lawyer should not be in a position where benefit to a private client might affect perfor-mance of the lawyer’s professional functions on behalf of public authority. Also, unfair advantage could accrue to the private client by reason of access to confidential gov-ernment information about the client’s adversary obtainable only through the lawyer’s government service. However, the rules govern-ing lawyers presently or formerly employed by a government agency should not be so restrictive as to inhibit transfer of employment to and from the government. The gov-ernment has a legitimate need to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. The provisions for screening and waiver are necessary to prevent the disqualification rule from imposing too severe a deterrent against enter-ing public service. The private client should be informed of the lawyer’s prior relationship with a public agency at the time of engagement of the lawyer’s services. [5] When the client is an agency of one government, that agency should be treated as a private client for pur-poses of this Rule if the lawyer thereafter represents an agency of another government, as when a lawyer represents a city and subse-quently is employed by a federal agency. Paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) do not prohibit a lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share estab-lished by prior independent agree-ment. They prohibit directly relating the attorney’s compensation to the fee in the matter in which the lawyer is disqualified. Paragraph (b)(2) does not require that a lawyer give notice to the gov-ernment agency at a time when pre-mature disclosure would injure the client; a requirement for premature disclosure might preclude engage-ment of the lawyer. Such notice is, however, required to be given as soon as practicable in order that the government agency will have a rea-sonable opportunity to ascertain that the lawyer is complying with Rule 1.11 and to take appropriate action if it believes the lawyer is not complying. Paragraph (c) operates only when the lawyer in question has knowl-edge of the information, which means actual knowledge; it does not operate with respect to information that merely could be imputed to the lawyer. Paragraphs (b) and (d) do not pro-hibit a lawyer from jointly repre-senting a private party and a government agency when doing so is permitted by Rule 1.7 and is not otherwise prohibited by law. sent of both a current client and the for-mer agency. Paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) have no counterparts in the Virginia Code . C OMMITTEE C OMMENTARY The Committee believed that the ABA Model Rule provides more complete guidance regarding lawyers’ movement between the public and private sectors. However, the Committee added the lan-guage of DR 8-101(A) as paragraph (a) in order to make this Rule a more com-plete statement regarding the particular responsibilities of lawyers who are public officials. Additionally, to make paragraph (b) consistent with similar provisions under Rule 1.9(a) and (b), the Committee modified the paragraph to require consent to representation by both the current client and the lawyer’s former government agency. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 The amendment to RPC 1.15 clarifies that money held by a lawyer on behalf of a client must be held in a trust account, while other property may be placed in a safe deposit box or other place of safe-keeping. As it was previously written, Rules 1.15(a) appeared to permit a lawyer to place money held on behalf of a client into a safe deposit box rather than a trust account. The Court also replaced the word “monies” with “funds” in Comment 1 to be consistent with the language in the remainder of the Rules and Comments. The rule now reads as follows, in pertinent part: Rule 1.15 Safekeeping Property (a) Depositing Funds. [6] [7] [8] [9] V IRGINIA C ODE C OMPARISON Paragraph (a) is identical to DR 8-101(A). Paragraph (b) is substantially similar to DR 9-101(B), except that the latter used the terms “in which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public employee.” The Rule also requires con-Rule 5.4 continued on page 14 12 VIRGINIA LAWYER | December 2013 | Vol. 62 www.vsb.org