How do you set up an ethical screen for a new hire?

An ethical screen is a set of procedures that puts one lawyer and one matter behind glass: the lawyer does no work on the matter, opens none of its files, and receives none of its information.

The point of the structure is to keep what the lawyer already knows from becoming what the whole firm knows — because absent a screen, it does.

That is imputation, and it is the problem the screen exists to solve.

Under the model text of Rule 1.10(a), "While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9," unless an exception applies.

A conflict that would disqualify your new lateral practicing alone therefore disqualifies every lawyer in your firm, for as long as the association lasts.

Rule 1.10(a)(2) is the exception written for the lateral fact pattern: the former-client conflict the lawyer carries in from a prior firm.

Under the model text, that conflict is not imputed to your firm where the disqualified lawyer is "timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom," written notice goes to the affected former client, and compliance certifications come from the screened lawyer and a partner.

On that model text, when all of the elements are in place, the conflict stays with the lateral.

Two boundaries on what the screen cures.

First, under Comment [7] to Rule 1.10, the model screen works without the former client's informed consent — but it is a rule-compliance structure, not an immunity: "even where screening mechanisms have been adopted, tribunals may consider additional factors in ruling upon motions to disqualify a lawyer from pending litigation."

Second, the (a)(2) screen is built for the conflict that travels with the lateral from their old firm.

A conflict with a client your firm already represents is a different fact pattern, and it belongs in front of your state bar's ethics counsel before the process moves.

The screen is also step two.

The search that tells you which matters need walling off is its own process, and the keystone page on lateral conflicts checks walks through it end to end — run the check first, then build the screen around what it finds.

Both sit inside the rest of hiring for your law firm.

Start with what the words "model rule" mean.

The ABA's Model Rules are a model: they bind no one until a state adopts them, and states adopt them with changes of their own.

The rules this page leans on are that model trio — Rules 1.7 and 1.9, and Rule 1.10 on imputation, with the screening exception in 1.10(a)(2) — described as the ABA wrote them, not as any state has enacted them.

So which states accept a screen the former client never agreed to?

States differ, and this is where our research runs out.

We could not verify a state-by-state breakdown of which jurisdictions accept non-consensual lateral screening, so this page names no states and gives no count.

A state's adopted Rule 1.10 may permit the model screen, decline it, or attach conditions of its own — and assuming the model answer is your state's answer is exactly the error the difference produces.

The practical instruction follows from that gap.

Before you rely on any screen — and before the lateral's first day — read your state's current version of Rule 1.10 and put the screen you plan to build in front of your state bar's ethics counsel.

If your state's rule adds elements the model text does not have — or takes some away — build to your state's version; the sequence on this page is the model's, and the version your state adopted is the one that governs.

The model rule names its elements, and the build list follows them directly.

Miss one and the exception fails — the conflict imputes again, firm-wide.

1. Screen the lawyer before they touch the matter. The model text requires that the disqualified lawyer be "timely screened from any participation in the matter" — no work on it, no access to it, no information about it, starting now rather than after the question comes up. Comment [9]'s timing standard, covered below, applies to the notice; our research did not capture how the model text defines "timely," so confirm that against your state's version — and in practice, put the screen up when you know, not when it is convenient.
2. Apportion no part of the fee. The same model clause requires the screened lawyer be "apportioned no part of the fee therefrom." That element has its own mechanics, and the last section below covers them.
3. Give prompt written notice to the affected former client. Under Rule 1.10(a)(2)(ii), the notice describes the screen, states the firm's compliance with it, notes that tribunal review may be available, and agrees to respond to the former client's inquiries — written notice "to enable the former client to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule." Comment [9] fills in content and timing: the notice generally should include a description of the screened lawyer's prior representation, and it should go out as soon as practicable after the need for screening becomes apparent.
4. Provide certifications of compliance. Under Rule 1.10(a)(2)(iii), certifications come from two people — the screened lawyer and a partner of the firm — and run on two triggers: at reasonable intervals when the former client asks in writing, and again when the screening ends. Name the signers when you build the screen, and calendar the renewal and end-of-screening triggers next to the notice copy.

Keep the paperwork where the matter's conflicts file lives: the notice with its send date, every certification with its date, and a record of when the screen started and when it ended.

The notice-and-certification package is what lets the former client — and a tribunal, if one ever looks — see that the screen you built is the screen you are running.

An undocumented screen is a wall nobody can prove was ever there.

One expectation to set internally: the former client does not have to consent under the model text, but the notice you send tells them tribunal review may be available, and the certifications keep the door open for them to test compliance later.

Build the screen as if it will be audited, because the model rule hands the former client the tools to audit it.

The rule's language is abstract; the wall is concrete.

Whatever your technology stack, the screen has to produce one outcome: the screened lawyer has no route into the matter — not the documents, not the calendar, not the conversation.

Work backward from that outcome through the systems where matter information actually lives.

In your practice-management platform, restrict the matter record itself so the screened lawyer's account cannot see or select it, and flag the matter as screened so the flag travels with every search and report that touches it.

In the document-management system, cut permission on the matter's folder, its templates and its correspondence archive — and remember the copies that live outside it: shared network drives, a partner's downloads folder, the printed file on a corner desk.

Email takes the same treatment: the screened lawyer comes off every matter distribution list, and nothing about the matter gets forwarded to them, ever.

Calendaring and the conflicts database close the loop — matter deadlines stay out of their view, and the conflicts entry marks the matter screened so future searches route around them.

Timing is part of the build.

The model rule's word is "timely," and the cleanest way to be timely is to provision the lateral's accounts with the restrictions already in place, so there is never a day one on which the wrong folders were visible.

Set the wall before the start date; do not grant broad access first and trim it after.

The software, though, is the smaller half.

A screen holds information as much as paper, so the people actually working the matter need to know the screened lawyer is off-limits as a source — no discussing the matter with them, no looping them in, no "quick question."

A wall that lives only in the permissions panel fails in the hallway.

Brief everyone on the matter when the screen goes up, and again when new people join it.

The model rule's second condition stands next to the wall itself: the disqualified lawyer must be "apportioned no part of the fee therefrom."

However your firm divides fees, the screened matter's fee arrives with the screened lawyer's name nowhere on it — no slice, no credit, no carve-out.

Comment [8] to Rule 1.10 draws the line the firm actually operates on.

A screened lawyer may keep "a salary or partnership share established by prior independent agreement"; what the comment bars is "compensation directly related to the matter in which the lawyer is disqualified" — pay that moves when that matter's fees move.

The allowance is for a salary or partnership share set by prior independent agreement, and our research did not capture how the model text applies "prior" to a package agreed at hiring — put that question to your state bar's ethics counsel.

What the firm controls directly is the bar: does any term of the lateral's pay rest on, or move with, the screened matter's fee?

If one does, take it out.

So build the compensation side of the screen the way you build the file side.

When you set the lateral's pay, keep every variable off the screened matter: no origination credit, no share of that fee or recovery, no bonus line computed from its collections.

For a partner lateral, audit the mechanisms that could quietly reconnect income to the matter — profit allocations, origination splits, matter-level bonuses — and disconnect any that touch it.

Then write the arrangement down: a short compensation note in the screen's file saying how the lawyer is paid and why nothing in it moves with the screened matter's fees, sitting beside the notice and the certifications so the answer to "does the screened lawyer share in this fee?" is on paper, not in someone's memory.

A closing word on what this page verified and what it did not.

The rule statements above are the ABA's model text of Rule 1.10 and Comments [7] through [9], as our research captured them.

We did not verify any state's adopted version of Rule 1.10, and we found no verified count of states that accept or reject non-consensual screening of lateral lawyers.

The model rules bind no one until a state adopts them.

Before you rely on a screen — before the lateral's first day — confirm the current rule with your state bar's ethics counsel, and confirm the fee and notice mechanics against your state's version.

Employer information, not legal advice. Your state's adopted rules control, and states differ on non-consensual screening; confirm current requirements with your state bar's ethics counsel before you act on them.