WPCm 6n W.JyflD΋N ܕ3/SdL+ @l:-hp;u{ب'vQw֢sd ḨuuT/ ҁ`jmy^AFA-*q`;{` !EúJcbVc P`M=yW1eM+ C pgh.?U ϳIj;+fSP4bt {uȕ(14;#4,0t;M8}Z G@B!V#e^֎i Gzcɑ3rT)"^oͤm^džv֏Ԧo18<棹-; 8pH\UND % 04 #! xe^ UN!wo4s m 0Rb ~ 0RDNN s 0K 0? AQ0R 0 0 0 0 0 0q 0P 0, 0 0 0 0 0x! 0K" 0# 0# 0$ 0% 0q& 0L' 0$( 0( 0) 0* 0f+/,-/1j2z5;68 0PK<!<U:= 0N=D>Db@8CFGHIeKZLx?N?NPOSTKVV Y Y  Z-[0Abqfqfqfmhiyj D5imm Bp.pp5qt 0Pw 0Dx]x:4zn~5g$oÅ2܉[^M77r8rr[#}}LLE 2Q uAKLBBBBBBHHg("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( U$  HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\OPINION.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Opinion.wpt~\'L (() Z6Times New Roman RegulartpO'!PP`PxP&U(oG2$ U!   XXX   `   0  XXhX- - 3|x(#$  0  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\Opinion.wpt2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  7b<c[C<<C    H  $  XXX   `   1  XXhX  _ThenatureorfrequencyofMr.DavissrepresentationofMr.andMs.Blackwooddonot  appearinthisrecord.2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5     $  XXX   `   2  XXhX  _WhenMr.Davisjoinedthefirmin1988,itsnamewasHeiskell,Donelson,Bearman,  Adams,Williams&Kirsch.ThefirmlaterchangeditsnametoBaker,Donelson,Bearman&  Caldwell.   $  XXX   `   3  XXhX  _Mr.ClinardassertedthattheboundarylinerangenerallyalongPepperBranchCreek;while  Mr.Blackwoodinsistedthattheboundarylineranalongafencethathadbeenconstructedin1965  tothewestofPepperBranchCreek.   $  XXX   `   4  XXhX  _The_Blackwoods_ԀlateramendedtheircounterclaimtoaddAustinPowderCompany,Inc.as  acounterdefendantwhentheydiscoveredthatAustinPowderwascarryingouttheblastingasa  subcontractorforAmericanLimestone.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5   $  XXX   `   5  XXhX  _Waller,Lansden,Dortch&Davisadoptedthesescreeningproceduresinordertotake  advantageofFormalOp.89F118whichapprovestheuseofscreeningdevicestopreventthe  imputeddisqualificationofanentirelawfirmunderTenn.S.Ct.R.8,DR5105(D).SeeTennessee  Bd.ofProfessionalResponsibility,FormalOp.89F118(Mar.10,1989),1989WL534365  (Tenn.Bd.Prof.Resp.). p  $  XXX   `   6  XXhX  _ByagreedorderdatedAugust21,1997,thecasewastransferredfromtheChanceryCourt  forRobertsonCountytotheCircuitCourtforRobertsonCounty. 1  $  XXX   `   7  XXhX  _SeeCarolM.Rice,TheSuperiorOrdersDoctrineinLegalEthics:SendingtheWrong  MessagetoYoungLawyers,32WakeForestL.Rev.887,915(1997);Note,UnchangingRulesin  ChangingTimes:TheCanonsofEthicsandIntraFirmConflictsofInterest,73YaleL.J.1058,  106869(1964). |  $  XXX   `   8  XXhX  _SeeRichardAbel,AmericanLawyers18283,31112(1989)( Abel)(Table45: Growth  inSizeofLargeLawFirmsandTable46: Sizeof200LargestFirms,1975,197887");Randall  B.Bateman,ReturntotheEthicsRulesasaStandardforAttorneyDisqualification:Attempting  ConsistencyinMotionsforDisqualificationbytheUseofChineseWalls,33Duq.L.Rev.249,255  56(1995)statementofN.LeeCooper,ABADivisionofPublicRelations, ABAEstablishesEthics p 2000'toEvaluateLegalEthics,http://www.abanet.org/media/jul97/eth2000.html.((3$ U!     b"   _>>F>   Ad FILED>XX>F  October28,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,OAZ"Arial Regular(O$   $  XXX   `   9  XXhX  _SeeManningv.Waring,Cox,James,Sklar&Allen,849F.2d222,22425(6thCir.1988);  Abel,supranote8,at200;KennethL.Penegar,TheLossofInnocence:ABriefHistoryofLawFirm  DisqualificationintheCourts,8Geo.J.LegalEthics831,836,887,89192(1995). :  $  XXX   `   10  XXhX  _SeeHowardv.Babcock,863P.2d150,156,159(Cal.1993);SolLinowitz&Martin  Mayer,TheBetrayedProfession:LawyeringattheEndoftheTwentiethCentury2223,28,101  (1994);WalterP.Armstrong,Jr.,Professionalism:WhatLiesAhead,Tenn.B.J.,Mar./Apr.1994,  at12,1516( Armstrong)(notingtheadventoflargelawfirmsandthe increasedemphasison  timekeepingandthe bottomline);BarrySullivan,ProfessionsofLaw,9GeoJ.LegalEthics p 1235,1254(1996). .  $  XXX   `   11  XXhX  _SeeManningv.Waring,Cox,James,Sklar&Allen,849F.2dat22425;SilverChrysler  Plymouth,Inc.v.ChryslerMotorCorp.,518F.2d751,75354(2dCir.1975);Bateman,supranote  8,at255;StevenGoldberg,TheFormerClientsDisqualificationGambit:ABadMotiveinPursuit  ofanEthicalAnomoly,72Minn.L.Rev.227,22830(1987);WarrenFields,Note,Attorneys:  VicariousDisqualificationandtheModelRulesofProfessionalConduct,40Okla.L.Rev.231,246 p (1987).  $  XXX   `   13  XXhX  _SeePenegar,supranote9,at89293.  $  XXX   `   12  XXhX  _SeeArmstrong,supranote10,at17.  $  XXX   `   14  XXhX  _SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.8,Canon4.   $  XXX   `   16  XXhX  _SeeBatesv.StateBarofArizona,433U.S.350,368,97S.Ct.2691,2701(1977)  (observingthe reallifefactthatlawyersearntheirlivelihoodatthebar).  $  XXX   `   15  XXhX  _SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.8,Canon9.   $  XXX   `   19  XXhX  _See,e.g.,Bateman,supranote8,at281;DonaldR.McMinn,ABAFormalOpinion88356:  NewJustificationforIncreasedUseofScreeningDevicestoAvertAttorneyDisqualification,65  N.Y.U.L.Rev.1231,123135(1990). n  $  XXX   `   20  XXhX  _See,e.g.,NeilW.Hamilton&KevinR.Coan,AreWeaProfessionorMerelyaBusiness?:  TheErosionoftheConflictRulesThroughtheIncreasedUseofEthicalWalls,27HofstraL.Rev.  57,10508(1998);ThomasD.Morgan,ScreeningtheDisqualifiedLawyer:TheWrongSolutionto  theWrongProblem,10U.Ark.LittleRockL.J.37,4849(198788).   $  XXX   `   21  XXhX  _SeeRoberts&SchaeferCo.v.SanCon,Inc.,898F.Supp.356,363(S.D.W.Va.1995)  (statingthat courtsshouldbereluctanttosacrificetheinterestsofclientsandformerclientsforthe  perceivedbusinessinterestoflawyers);MonroeH.Freedman,CaveatLector:ConflictsofInterest  ofALIMembersinDraftingtheRestatements,26HofstraL.Rev.641,646,65459(1998);Penegar,  supranote9,at86997. E  $  XXX   `   22  XXhX  _SeeRestatement(Third)oftheLawGoverningLawyers1cmt.d,at5(ProposedFinal  DraftNo.21998).   $  XXX   `   23  XXhX  _SeeHenriksenv.GreatAm.Sav.&Loan,14Cal.Rptr.2d184,187(Ct.App.1992);  Hamilton&Coan,supranote20,at66;Restatement(Third)oftheLawGoverningLawyers,  Forward,atxxiii(ProposedFinalDraftNo.1,1996). A  $  XXX   `   25  XXhX  _SeeWalterP.Armstrong,Jr.,RegulationoftheBarinTennessee,53Tenn.L.Rev.723,  73031(1986);W.B.Shaney,HistoryoftheBarAssociationofTennessee,10Tenn.L.Rev.25,40  41(1931);AmericanBarAssociationCanonsofProfessionalEthics,18Tenn.L.Rev.322,387ed.  note(1944).  $  XXX   `   24  XXhX  _SeePenegar,supranote9,at89699.  $  XXX   `   26  XXhX  _SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.37,5,173Tenn.863,890. #  $  XXX   `   27  XXhX  _In1967,theCourtagainadoptedtheAmericanBarAssociationsCanonsofProfessional  EthicsastheethicalstandardsrelatingtothepracticeoflawinTennessee.SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.38,  218Tenn.806,842,WestPublishingCo.,TennesseeDecisions418424S.W.2datxxxix.Three  yearslater,theCourtadoptedanamendedversionoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitythat  hadbeenadoptedbytheAmericanBarAssociationin1969.SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.38,223Tenn.793. p Tenn.S.Ct.R.38becameTenn.S.Ct.R.8whentheCourtissuednewrestatedrulesin1981.See `  Tenn.S.Ct.R.8,WestPublishingCo.,TennesseeDecisions609614S.W.2dat_xlv_.Theproposed P  rulescurrentlybeingcirculatedbytheTennesseeBarAssociationarepatternedaftertheAmerican @  BarAssociationsModelRulesofProfessionalConduct.SeeIntroduction,PreliminaryDraftofthe 0  ReportoftheTennesseeBarAssociationCommitteefortheStudyofStandardsofProfessional  p  Conduct,957S.W.2dNo.3,atCt.R3(Feb.17,1998).Thepracticeofpatterningethicsrulesafter `  rulesadoptedbytheAmericanBarAssociationisnotuniquetoTennessee,butratherisfollowed P  inmostotherjurisdictions.SeeRestatement(Third)oftheLawGoverningLawyers1cmt.dat @  5(ProposedFinalDraftNo.21998). &  $  XXX   `   28  XXhX  _Onthispoint,werespectfullydisagreewiththeobservationofourcolleaguesonthe  TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsthat thedisciplinaryrules[intheCodeofProfessional  Responsibility]donotfullyequatewiththebodyoflawgoverningcourts,trials,andthe  administrationofthejusticesystem.SeeStatev.Tate,925S.W.2d548,550(Tenn.Crim.App.  1995);Statev.Claybrook,No.3,1992WL17546,at*11(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.5,1992),perm.app. p denied(Tenn.May4,1992).WhilethisstatementmaybecorrectwithregardtotheCanonsand `   EthicalConsiderationsintheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,itisincorrectwithregardtothe  DisciplinaryRules.   $  XXX   `   29  XXhX  _SixyearsafterauthorizingtheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilitytoissueethicsopinions,  theCourtconcededthatithad reluctantlysuccumbedtothe persistentrequestsfromasubstantial  segmentofthebar.Statev.Jones,726S.W.2d515,519(Tenn.1987). c  $  XXX   `   30  XXhX  _Advisoryethicsopinions,whichthedisciplinarycounselmayissue,arelessauthoritative.  SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.9,26.5(c).  $  XXX   `   31  XXhX  _SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.9,26.5(a). o  $  XXX   `   32  XXhX  _SeealsoZimmermanv.Zimmerman,20Cal.Rptr.2d132,135(Ct.App.1993);Zarco  SupplyCo.v.Bonnell,658So.2d151,153(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995);InreRobak,654N.E.2d731,  735(Ind.1995);JamaicaPub.Serv.Co.v.AIUIns..Co.,707N.E.2d414,417(N.Y.1998);Kala  v.AluminumSmelting&RefiningCo.,688N.E.2dat262.]]]])!dxdx   $  XXX   `   33  XXhX  _SeePeopleexrel.DeptofCorps.v.SpeedeeOilChangeSys.,Inc.,980P.2d371,38384  (Cal.1999);Peopleexrel.Petersv.DistrictCourt,951P.2d926,930(Colo.1998);CharlesW.  Wolfram,ModernLegalEthics7.6.2(1986);Freedman,supranote21,at65556;1GeoffreyC.  Hazard,Jr.&W.WilliamHodes,TheLawofLawyering:AHandbookontheModelRulesof  ProfessionalConduct1.10:201,at32425(2ded.1990). d $  $  XXX   `   34  XXhX  _SeeHazard&Hodes,id,1.9:103,at291;Penegar,supranote9,at848. +  $  XXX   `   36  XXhX  _The1974versionofDR5105(D)statesthat [i]falawyerisrequiredtodecline  employmentortowithdrawfromemploymentunderaDisciplinaryRule,nopartner,orassociate,  oranyotherlawyeraffiliatedwiththatlawyerorthatlawyersfirm,mayacceptorcontinuesuch  employment.   $  XXX   `   17  XXhX  _SeeErwinChemerinsky&LaurieLevenson,TheEthicsofBeingaCommentator,50  MercerL.Rev.737,764n.49(1999).Astormofprotestfromotherorganizedbargroupserupted  whenthediscussiondraftoftheAmericanBarAssociationsModelRulesofProfessionalConduct  wasfirstreleasedinJanuary1980.Likewise,theAmericanLawInstitutesRestatement(Third)of  theLawGoverningLawyershassparkedaheateddebateamongvariousorganizedbarfactions, p includingtheAmericanBarAssociationwhohaslauncheditsowninitiativecalledEthics2000to `  examineandrespondtotheALIswork.((3$ U!   ($$   1     $  XXX   `   37  XXhX  _TheimputeddisqualificationdoctrinecanalsobefoundintheABAModelRulesof  ProfessionalConductRule1.10(a)(1983)andtheRestatement(Third)oftheLawGoverning  Lawyers203(ProposedFinalDraftNo.11996). 0  $  XXX   `   39  XXhX  _SeeBateman,supranote8,at256;ChristopherJ.Dunnigan,TheArtFormerlyKnownas  theChineseWall:ScreeninginLawFirms:Why,When,Where,andHow,11Geo.J.LegalEthics  291,303(1998).Screeningarrangementswereusedbybanksparticipatingaslendersforbothsides  ofcorporatetransactionsinvolvingpublicallytradedsecurities,seeLeoHerzel&DaleE.Colling,  TheChineseWallandConflictofInterestinBanks,34Bus.Law.73,74(1978),orbetweenabanks p loanandtrustdepartmenttoprotectagainstallegationsofinsidertrading.SeeAllanHorwich,Bank `  FiduciariesWithMaterialInsideInformation:ResponsibilitiesandRisks,113BankingL.J.4,8n.14 P  (1996).   $  XXX   `   35  XXhX  _Between1931and1933,theAmericanBarAssociationsCommitteeonProfessionalEthics  andGrievancesissuedfiveformalethicsopinionsinvokingtheimputeddisqualificationdoctrine.  SeeNote,UnchangingRulesinChangingTimes:TheCanonsofEthicsandIntraFirmConflicts,  73YaleL.J.at1060n.14.In1962,aUnitedStatesDistrictCourtinConnecticutinvokedthe  imputeddisqualificationdoctrinedespiteproofthatthedisqualifiedlawyerandhislawfirmhad p madeeveryefforttoscreenthelawyerfromhisnewpartners.SeeW.E.BassettCo.v.H.C.Cook `  Co.,201F.Supp.821,82425(D.Conn.),affdpercuriam,302F.2d268(2dCir.1962). +  $  XXX   `   38  XXhX  _SeeWolfram,supranote33,7.6.2,at394;Fields,supranote11,at231n.1.   $  XXX   `   40  XXhX  _SeeMonroeH.Freedman,UnderstandingLawyersEthics206210(1990).  $  XXX   `   41  XXhX  _SeeFreedman,supranote21,at65455. e  $  XXX   `   42  XXhX  _Inthesedrafts,theKutakCommissionundertooktorewritetherulesgoverning  confidentiality,probonowork,advertisingandsolicitation,conflictsofinterest,anddisclosure  duringnegotiationandlitigation.SeeH.GeoffreyMoulton,Jr.,FederalismandChoiceofLawin  theRegulationofLegalEthics,82Minn.L.Rev.73,8990(1997).   $  XXX   `   43  XXhX  _SeeW.WilliamHodes,TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,theKutakRules,andthe  TrialLawyersCode:Surprisingly,ThreePeasinaPod,35U.MiamiL.Rev.739,74249(1981). u  $  XXX   `   44  XXhX  _SeeTedSchneyer,ProfessionalismasBarPolitics:TheMakingoftheModelRulesof  ProfessionalConduct,14Law&Soc.Inquiry677,67879(1989).   $  XXX   `   45  XXhX  _SeeAnn.ModelRulesofProfessionalConductRule1.09,144&156(3ded.1996);  LawyersMan.onProf.Conduct(ABA/BNA)51:206207(Sept.23,1992);Wolfram,supranote  33,7.1.4,at322&n.48;Hazard&Hodes,supranote33,1.9:107. {  $  XXX   `   46  XXhX  _Rule1.10(a)containedtherulesgoverninglawyersassociatedinafirm;whileRule1.10(b)  containedtherulesgoverningthecircumstancewhenalawyerleavesafirm.SeeCenterfor  ProfessionalResponsibility,AmericanBarAssn,TheLegislativeHistoryoftheModelRulesof  ProfessionalConduct:TheirDevelopmentintheABAHouseofDelegates7172(1987).  $  XXX   `   48  XXhX  _SeeBateman,supranote8,at25960.  $  XXX   `   47  XXhX  _SeeFields,supranote11,at23940n.58. C  $  XXX   `   49  XXhX  _SeeLegislativeHistoryoftheModelRulesofProfessionalConduct,supranote46,at72  73.  $  XXX   `   50  XXhX  _SeeFields,supranote11,at23940. h  $  XXX   `   54  XXhX  _SeeIll.RulesofProf.ConductRule1.10(b)(2)(1999);Mass.Sup.Jud.Ct.R.3:07,Mass.  RulesofProf.ConductRule1.10(d)(2)(1999);Mich.RulesofProf.ConductRule1.10(b)(1)  (1999);Ore.CodeofProf.ResponsibilityRule1105(I)(1999);Pa.RulesofProf.ConductRule  1.10(b)(1)(1999);Wash.RulesofProf.ConductRule1.10(b)(1)(1998).   $  XXX   `   51  XXhX  _SeeABAModelRulesofProfessionalConductRule1.11(a)(1983);Hamilton&Coan,  supranote20,at78;HazardandHodes,supranote33,1.10:104,at322n.4&1.10:207,at336  37.   $  XXX   `   55  XXhX  _SeeMe.CodeofProf.ResponsibilityRule3.4(b)(3)(ii)(1999). Q  $  XXX   `   52  XXhX  _SeeABAModelRulesofProfessionalConductRule1.10cmt.(Confidentiality;firstand  secondparagraphs)(1983).   $  XXX   `   56  XXhX  _SeeN.H.RulesofProf.Conduct1.10cmt.(Confidentiality)(1999).   $  XXX   `   57  XXhX  _SeeT.C.TheatreCorp.v.WarnerBros.PicturesCorp.,113F.Supp.265,268(S.D.N.Y.  1953);Bateman,supranote8,at26364nn.8384;CharlesW.Wolfram,FormerClientConflicts,  10Geo.J.LegalEthics677,677(1997).   $  XXX   `   59  XXhX  _Theimputeddisqualificationrule,asembodiedinRule1.10oftheModelRulesof  ProfessionalConductisintendedtoapplyonlywhenthemovinglawyerhasaprimary,asopposed  toasecondary,conflictofinterest.Thus,alawyerwhohasanimputedconflictofinterestbecause  anotherlawyerinhisorherformerfirmhadreceivedinformationfromaformerclientwouldnot  triggertheapplicationofRule1.10.   $  XXX   `   60  XXhX  _ThesecircuitsincludetheSecond,Sixth,Seventh,andtheFederal.See,e.g.,Manningv.  Waring,Cox,James,Sklar&Allen,849F.2dat226;Panduitv.AllStatesPlasticMfg.Co.,744F.2d  at158081;Schiesslev.Stephens,717F.2dat421;Chengv.GAFCorp.,631F.2d1052,1057(2d  Cir.1980),vacatedonjurisdictionalgrounds,450U.S.903(1981)(approvingtheuseofscreening  arrangementswhenthemovinglawyerdidnothaveaprimaryconflictofinterest).   $  XXX   `   61  XXhX  _SeeGeislerv.WyethLabs.,716F.Supp.520,526(D.Kan.1989);Kovacevicv.Fair  AutomotiveRepair,Inc.,641F.Supp.237,244(N.D.Ill.1986);NemoursFound.v.Gilbane,Aetna,  Fed.Ins.Co.,632F.Supp.418,428(D.Del.1986);INAUnderwritersIns.Co.v.Rubin,635F.  Supp.1,45(E.D.Pa.1983);NFC,Inc.v.GeneralNutrition,Inc.,562F.Supp.332,334(D.Mass.  1983).   $  XXX   `   62  XXhX  _See,e.g.,Horchv.UnitedofOmahaLifeIns.Co.,No.CV980415821S,1999WL511165,  at*2(Conn.Super.July2,1999);SK_Handtool_ԀCorp.v.DresserIndus.,Inc.,619N.E.2d1282,1294  (Ill.App.Ct.1993);Petrovichv.Petrovich,556So.2d281,282(La.Ct.App.1990);Jensonv.  ToucheRoss&Co.,335N.W.2d720,732(Minn.1983);_Kassis_Ԁv.TeachersIns.&Annuity_Assn_,  678N.Y.S.2d32,32(App.Div.1998),_revd_,___N.E.2d___,1999WL444339,at*8(N.Y.July p 1,1999);_Kala_Ԁv.AluminumSmelting&RefiningCorp.,688N.E.2dat266.   $  XXX   `   63  XXhX  _ThesecircuitsincludetheFirst,Third,Ninth,Tenth,andEleventhCircuits.See,e.g.,Cox  v.AmericanCastIronPipeCo.,847F.2d725,73132n.11(11thCir.1988);Smithv.Whatcoff,757  F.2d1098,110102(10thCir.1985);Kevlickv.Goldstein,724F.2d844,849n.5(1stCir.1984);  PaulE.IaconoStructuralEngr,Inc.v.Humphrey,722F.2d435,442(9thCir.),cert.denied,464  U.S.851(1983);UnitedStatesv.Miller,624F.2d1198,1204(3dCir.1980).   $  XXX   `   58  XXhX  _Thepurposeofmakingthispresumptionirrebuttableistoprotecttheformerclients  confidentialinformationbyavoidingputtingtheformerclienttotheHobsonschoiceofeither  havingtodivulgetheinformationitseekstoprotectinordertodisqualifyaformerattorneyor  havingtorefrainfromfilingthedisqualificationmotionaltogether.SeeGovernmentofIndiav.  CookIndus.,Inc.,569F.2d737,740(2dCir.1978);Statev.Crepeault,704A.2d778,783(Vt. p 1997);Bateman,supranote8,at25253;Freedman,supranote21,at655;Wolfram,supranote33, `  7.4.3,at36869. P     $  XXX   `   64  XXhX  _ThesecircuitsincludetheFifthandEighthCircuits.See,e.g.,_In_ԀreAmericanAirlines,Inc.,  972F.2dat614,628;Arkansasv.DeanFoodsProds.Corp.,605F.2dat38687.   $  XXX   `   18  XXhX  _Tenyearsago,TennesseesBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityissuedFormalEthics  OpinionNo.89F118(Mar.10,1989)approvingtheuseofscreeningarrangementstoavoidthe  imputeddisqualificationrequirementsofTenn.S.Ct.R.9,DR5105(D).Morerecently,the  TennesseeBarAssociationsCommitteefortheStudyofStandardsofProfessionalConductreleased  proposedrulesspecificallyauthorizingtheuseofscreeningarrangements.SeeProposedRule p 1.10(B),TennesseeBarAssoc.Comm.fortheStudyofStandardsofProfessionalConduct(Nov. `  1,1997),reprintedin,957S.W.2dNo.3(Feb.17,1998). ;  $  XXX   `   65  XXhX  _See,e.g.,Falveyv.A.P.C.SalesCorp.,185F.D.R.120,125(D.R.I.1999);AsystTechs.,  Inc.v.Empak,Inc.,962F.Supp.1241,1242(N.D.Cal.1997);McKenzieConstr.v.StCroixStorage  Corp.,961F.Supp.857,862(D.V.I.1997);Cardonav.GeneralMotorCorp.,942F.Supp.968,  97678(D.N.J.1996);MustangEnters.,Inc.v.PlugInStorageSys.,Inc.,874F.Supp.881,885,  887,supplementedby1995WL55226(N.D.Ill.1995);Roberts&SchaeferCo.v.SanCon,Inc., p 898F.Supp.at36162;UnitedStatesv.Davis,780F.Supp.21,2324(D.D.C.1991);Mallardv. `  M/V Germundo,530F.Supp.725,72728(S.D.Fla.1982);affd,746F.2d813(11thCir.1984). P   (  $  XXX   `   66  XXhX  _See,e.g.,Robertsv.Hutchins,572So.2d1231,1234&n.3(Ala.1990);TowneDev.of  Chandler,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt,842P.2d1377,138182(Ariz.Ct.App.1992);Normanv.  Norman,970S.W.2dat274;Henriksenv.GreatAm.Sav.&Loan,14Cal.Rptr.2dat18788;  Koulisisv.Rivers,730So.2dat292;LansingDelawareWaterDist.v.OakLanePark,Inc.,808   P.2d1369,1377(Kan.1991);Stateexrel.WalMartStores,Inc.v.Kortum,559N.W.2d496,501  (Neb.1997);Ciaffonev.EighthJudicialDist.Court,945P.2dat953;TruscoBankN.Y.v.Melino,  625N.Y.S.2dat808;PetroleumWholesale,Inc.v.Marshall,751S.W.2d295,300(Tex.App.  1988). }  $  XXX   `   67  XXhX  _See,e.g.,Peopleexrel.DeptofCorps.v.SpeedeeOilChangeSys.,Inc.,980P.2dat383  85;Otakav.Klein,791P.2d713,719n.4(Haw.1990).  $  XXX   `   68  XXhX  _See1989WL534365(Tenn.Bd.Prof.Resp.).   $  XXX   `   69  XXhX  _SeeStatev.Mason,No.01C019603CC00103,1997WL311900,at*6(Tenn.Crim.  App.June6,1997),perm.app.denied,(Tenn.Feb.23,1998);Statev.West,1992WL62020,at*3.  $  XXX   `   70  XXhX  _SeeStatev.Tate,925S.W.2dat55758.   $  XXX   `   71  XXhX  _ThelawyerandhisnewpartnerswerewellawareofFormalOp.89F118.Basedonthe  factscontainedinthecourtsopinion,itisclearthatthescreeningarrangementsestablishedbythe  newfirmisolatedthelawyerfromanyconnectionwiththecase.Adisciplinarycounselemployed  bytheTennesseeBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityconcludedthatthesearrangementscomplied  withFormalOp.89F118.   $  XXX   `   72  XXhX  _Thecourtwasusingtheterm brotherhoodtoconnotethecollegialprofessional  associationamonglawyers.Therecord,ofcourse,showsthattheoneofthepartnersinthe  plaintiffsfirmwasawoman.   $  XXX   `   73  XXhX  _ThisreferenceistoPennMut.LifeIns.Co.v.ClevelandMallAssocs.,841F.Supp.815,  818(E.D.Tenn.1993)inwhichtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtobserved: Forallpractical  purposes,thelawyershaveswitchedsides.Clientsmustfeelfreetoshareconfidenceswiththeir  lawyers.Thiswillnotoccurifwepermitlawyerstobetodaysconfidantsandtomorrows  adversaries.   $  XXX   `   74  XXhX  _SeeInreEllis,822S.W.2d602,605(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).   $  XXX   `   75  XXhX  _SeeInreAmericanAirlines,Inc.,972F.2dat611;PanduitCorp.v.AllStatesPlasticMfg.  Co.,744F.2dat157677;InternationalIns.Co.v.CityofChicagoHeights,643N.E.2d1305,1313  (Ill.App.Ct.1994);AssociatedWholesaleGrocers,Inc.v.AmiericoldCorp.,975P.2d231,238  (Kan.1999);Bateman,supranote8,at254256;Penegarsupra,note9,at833,85759.However,  thefactthatapartymightgainsometacticaladvantagebyfilingadisqualificationmotiondoesnot p provideabasisfordenyingthemotionifitismeritorious.SeeCalPakDelivery,Inc.v.United `  ParcelServ.,Inc.,60Cal.Rptr.2d207,214(App.Ct.1997). A  $  XXX   `   76  XXhX  _Theacademicliteratureaboundswithdiscussionsregardingtheweaknessesofscreening  arrangements.ProfessorCharlesW.Wolfram,thereporterfortheRestatement(Third)oftheLaw  GoverningLawyers,notesthatthepracticalitiesofthesearrangementsaretheirmostserious  weakness.SeeWolfram,supranote33,7.6.4,at402.Themostfrequentlymentioned  shortcomingsofscreeningarrangementsinclude:(1)theincentiveofalawyersnewcolleaguesto p elicitconfidentialinformationandthecorrespondingincentiveofnewlawyerstoprovidetheir `  allegiancetoanewfirmbycooperating;(2)thehighriskofinadvertentdisclosurewhenlawyersare P  workingtogetheronothermatters;(3)thedifficultyofdetectingandprovingthatascreenhasbeen @  breached;(4)thedifficultyofavoidingharmtotheformerclientifthescreenisbreached;(5)the 0  difficultyofmaintainingascreeningarrangementonceithasbeenestablished;and(6)thepublic  p  disbeliefthatscreeningarrangementsareeffective.See,e.g.,Dunnigan,supranote39,at29899; `  Freedman,supranote21,at65559;Hamilton&Coan,supranote20,at9899;Penegar,supranote P  9,at876;Pizzimenti,supra,52U.MiamiL.Rev.at318332;DevelopmentsintheLaw!Conflicts @  ofInterestintheLegalProfession,94Harv.L.Rev.1244,136162(1981).  $  XXX   `   77  XXhX  _SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.8,DR4101.  $  XXX   `   78  XXhX  _SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.8,DR5105,DR7101,102.   $  XXX   `   79  XXhX  _AcommenttoRule1.9pointsoutthat [p]aragraph(b)operatestodisqualifythelawyer  onlywhenthelawyerinvolvedhasactualknowledgeofinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and  1.9(b).Thus,ifalawyerwhilewithonefirmacquirednoknowledgeorinformationrelatingtoa  particularclientofthefirm,andthatlawyerlaterjoinedanotherfirm,neitherthelawyerindividually  northesecondfirmisdisqualifiedfromrepresentinganotherclientinthesameorarelatedmatter p eventhoughtheinterestsofthetwoclientsconflict.ABAModelRulesofProfessionalConduct `  Rule1.9cmt.(Confidentiality;thirdparagraph)(2nded.1992).Thus,thenewlawfirmwouldbe P  disqualifiedonlyifthelawyerhadactual,notimputed,knowledgeofaformerclientsconfidential @  informationasaresultofapreviousrepresentation.   $  XXX   `   80  XXhX  _SeeRestatement(Third)oftheLawGoverningLawyers204(2)cmt.d,at611(Proposed  FinalDraftNo.11996)(statingthatscreeningmaynotbesufficientdependingonthe natureand  relevanceoftheinformationpossessedbythelawyerandthattheruleisintendedtopermit  screeningasaremedyinsituationsinwhichtheinformationpossessedbythepersonallyprohibited  lawyerisnotlikelytobesignificant);seealsoJohnGibeaut,ASwitchInTime,A.B.A.J.,Nov. p 1997,at4041(quotingProfessorWolfram,thereporteroftheRestatement);Pizzimenti,supra,at `  319.   $  XXX   `   81  XXhX  _Courtsinotherjurisdictions,evenonesthathavereplacedtheABAModelCodeof  ProfessionalResponsibilitywiththeABAModelRulesofProfessionalConduct,continuetorely  ontheappearanceofimproprietystandard.SeeFirstAmericanCarriers,Inc.v.KrogerCo.,787  S.W.2d669,67172(Ark.1990);KennAirCorp.v.GainesvilleAlachuaCountyReg.AirportAuth.,  593So.2d1219,1223(Fla.DistCt.App.1992);Stateexrel.CreightonUniv.v.Hickman,512 p N.W.2d374,378(Neb.1994);InreInquirytoAdvisoryCommn,616A.2d1290,1291(N.J.1992); `  Burkesv.Hales,478N.W.2d37,43(Wis.Ct.App.1991);Wolfram,supranote57,at687,n.3435; P  LawrenceJ.Fox,LitigatingConflicts:IsItTimetoRevivetheAppearanceofImpropriety?,Prof. @  Law.,Feb.1998,at1,9.  $  XXX   `   53  XXhX  _SeeHamilton&Coan,supranote20,at60. U!   _  XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T8dd8  z9v=[@0,j:`  `@E ` 8ttxPX  v_@ D INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @)DATNASHVILLE  ` z9J JOHNM.CLINARDand h      p )   EDWARDCLINARD, h      p )    `     h      p ) ` Plaintiffs/CounterDefendants/   p )    ` Appellees,   h      p )    `     h      p )VS. `     h      p )  RobertsonCircuit    `     h      p )  No.8674   C.ROGERBLACKWOODand     p )   NANCYDODSBLACKWOOD,   p   )    `     h      p )  AppealNo.   ` Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs/   p )  01A019801CV00029   ` Appellants,   h      p )   `     h      p )VS. `     h      p )   `     h      p )AMERICANLIMESTONECO.,INC.,   p )   `     h      p ) ` CounterDefendant/Appellee,   p )   `     h      p )and `     h      p )   `     h      p )AUSTINPOWDERCO.,INC.,     p )   `     h      p ) ` CounterDefendant. h      p ) ! # Jr##S#@DAPPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORROBERTSONCOUNTY@#DATSPRINGFIELD,TENNESSEE@ DTHEHONORABLEWALTERC.KURTZ,JUDGEForJohnM.Clinardand h      p   ForC.RogerBlackwoodand $+t&% EdwardClinardand h      p   NancyDodsBlackwood: 6,'& AmericanLimestoneCo.,Inc.: H-('  `     h      p   J.ClarenceEvansAmesDavis   h      p   WinstonS.Evans l/*) PaulaD.Walker   h      p   Evans,Jones&Reynolds ~0+* Waller,Lansden,Dortch&Davis   p   Nashville,Tennessee 1,+ Nashville,Tennessee @%D 6N !REVERSEDANDREMANDED# ! 6N,#  6:20  `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  J:53   Oa @)Dc OPINION   c ` ThisappealinvolvestheimputeddisqualificationofaNashvillelawfirmfrom `  continuingtorepresentaclientwithinterestsadversetothoseoftwoformerclients  T ofoneofthelawfirmslawyers.Soonafterdiscoveringthattheirformerlawyerhad    joinedthelawfirmrepresentingtheiradversaries,theformerclientsfiledamotion L  intheCircuitCourtforRobertsonCountyseekingtodisqualifytheiradversarieslaw @  firm.Thelawfirmconcededthatthelawyerwaspersonallydisqualifiedbutopposed   disqualifyingtheentirefirmbyassertingthatithadinstitutedascreening 8 arrangementintendedtoshieldthedisqualifiedlawyerandhissecretaryfromtherest , ofthefirm.Thetrialcourtdeclinedtodisqualifythelawfirmbutpermittedthe  formerclientstopursueaninterlocutoryappeal.Wehavedeterminedthata $t screeningarrangementwillnotpreventthedisqualificationofthelawfirminthis  case.Thedisqualifiedlawyerhadatonetimeservedashisformerclientsprimary l lawyerintheverylawsuitbeforethetrialcourtand,therefore,hadbecomeheavily ` involvedwiththefactsofthecaseandhaddirectlyreceivedconfidentialinformation  fromhisformerclients.Accordingly,wereversetheorderdenyingthemotionto X ! disqualifyandremandthecasewithdirectionsthatthetrialcourtenteranorder !L# disqualifyingtheplaintiffslawfirm. #% @.D I.  &8")  ` Inthelate1960s,MaclinP.Davis,Jr.,thenapartnerintheNashvillelawfirm 0*%- ofWaller,Lansden,Dortch&Davis,representedC.RogerBlackwoodinadivorce +$'/ proceeding.Thereafter,Mr.DavisrepresentedMr.Blackwoodinothermatters. x-(1 AfterMr.BlackwoodmarriedNancyDodsBlackwoodin1973,Mr.Davis /l*3 representedMs.Blackwoodaswell. #  1      ׀In1988,Mr.DavisjoinedtheNashvilleoffice 0,5  ofBaker,Donelson,Bearman&Caldwell,alargelawfirmwithofficesinsixcities d2-7 inTennessee.4 #  2      ׀Asfarasthisrecordshows,Mr.Daviscontinuedtorepresentthe   Blackwoodsinvariousmattersfollowinghislateralmovebetweenfirms. T  ` TheBlackwoodsownafarminRobertsonCountythatadjoinspropertyowned   byJohnM.andEdwardClinard.Formanyyears,theClinardsleasedtheirproperty @  tovariouscompaniesthatquarriedlimestoneonthesite.Twodisputesarosebetween  4  theneighborsaftertheBlackwoodsbeganbuildinganewhomeontheirfarm.First,   Mr.BlackwoodandJohnClinarddisagreedaboutthelocationoftheirboundaryline.5` #  3      ׀ ,|  Second,theBlackwoodsassertedthatblastingatthequarryhaddamagedtheirnew   houseandstable.AccordingtoMr.Blackwood,AmericanLimestoneCompany,Inc. t ( AmericanLimestone)moderatedtheblastingandperformedsomeclearingand h excavationworkfortheBlackwoodsafterhecomplainedabouttheblasting.   However,theBlackwoodslaterassertedthattheblastingatthequarrycaused ` extensivedamagetotheirhouse. T  ` InFebruary1996,Mr.BlackwoodrepairedportionsofthefencealongPepper L BranchCreekthathadsparkedhisearlierdisagreementwithJohnClinardoverthe @  locationoftheboundaryline.Twomonthslater,theClinardsfiledadeclaratory  " judgmentactionagainstMr.BlackwoodintheChanceryCourtforRobertsonCounty 8"$ seekingtoestablishthedisputedboundaryline.Mr.BlackwoodretainedMr.Davis #,& torepresenthiminthelawsuit. % (  ` OnMay16,1996,Mr.Davisformallyenteredanappearanceinthecaseon ($, behalfofMr.Blackwood.Later,onJune24,1996,Mr.Davisfiledananswerand l*%. counterclaimagainsttheClinardsassertingthatthefencewastheproperboundary ,`'0 lineandrequestingthattheClinardsbeenjoinedfromremovingordamagingthe -)2 fence.Mr.BlackwoodandMr.Davisalsodiscussedfilingacounterclaimandthird X/*4 partyclaimagainsttheClinardsandAmericanLimestoneforblastingdamagetotheir 0L,6 property.However,Mr.DaviseventuallyinformedMr.Blackwoodthathecouldnot  fileaclaimagainstAmericanLimestonebecausetheBaker,Donelsonfirm T representedAmericanLimestoneinanunrelatedenvironmentalmatterandbecause H AmericanLimestonehaddeclinedtopermitMr.Davistorepresentinterestsadverse   tothecompanys.Accordingly,onAugust14,1996,Mr.DaviswithdrewasMr. @  BlackwoodslawyerandwasreplacedbyWinstonS.Evans.  4   ` OnSeptember30,1996,Mr.Evansfiledanamendedcounterclaimandthird ,|  partyclaimonbehalfoftheBlackwoodsagainsttheClinardsandAmerican   Limestone.Inthispleading,theBlackwoodssoughtdamagesfromboththeClinards t andAmericanLimestonefornegligentblasting,dumpingalargeamountof h contaminatedfillmaterialontheirfarm,andpollutingtheairwithdustfromthe   quarryoperations.6 #  4      ׀OnOctober29,1996,AmesDavisandWaller,Lansden,Dortch ` &DavisenteredanappearanceonbehalfofAmericanLimestone.Approximately T onemonthlater,AmesDavisandWaller,Lansden,Dortch&Davisreplacedthe  lawyerwhohadrepresentedtheClinardsfromtheoutsetofthelitigation. L  ` InJune1997,Mr.DavislefttheBaker,DonelsonfirmandreturnedtoWaller,  " Lansden,Dortch&Davisasanonequitymemberofthefirm.Bythattime,the 8"$ Wallerfirmhadgrowntoapproximatelyonehundredlawyers.UponMr.Daviss #,& return,theWallerfirmimplementedits ConflictofInterestScreeningProcedures % ( topreventMr.Davisandhissecretaryfromcommunicatinginformationconcerning $'t"* theBlackwoodscasetotheotherlawyersandstaffofWaller,Lansden,Dortch& ($, Davis.8` #  5       l*%.   -)2  ` OnAugust12,1997,soonafterdiscoveringthatMr.Davishadreturnedtothe   Wallerfirm,theBlackwoodslawyermailedalettertoAmesDavisstatingthatthe T BlackwoodsdidnotassenttotheWallerfirmsrepresentationofeithertheClinards H orAmericanLimestoneandrequestingtheWallerfirmtowithdrawfromthepending   lawsuit.Thereafter,onSeptember22,1997,theBlackwoodsfiledamotioninthe @  CircuitCourtforRobertsonCounty9 #  6      ׀seekingtodisqualifyWaller,Lansden,Dortch  4  &DavisfromcontinuingtorepresenttheClinardsandAmericanLimestone.The   Wallerfirmopposedthemotion.Thetrialcourtconsideredthemotionbasedon ,|  affidavitswithoutconductinganevidentiaryhearing.OnDecember16,1997,the   trialcourtdeclinedtodisqualifytheWallerfirmbutauthorizedtheBlackwoodsto t seekaninterlocutoryappeal.OnJanuary14,1998,thiscourtgrantedthe h BlackwoodsTenn.R.App.P.9application.   @.D II.  T  ` Thepracticeoflawhaschangeddramaticallyduringthelasthalfofthe L twentiethcentury.Greaternumbersoflawyerspracticeinfirmsratherthanassole @  practitionersorinsmallassociations.:p #  7      ׀Thenumberandsizeoftheselawfirmshave  " grownatanacceleratingpace,; #  8      ׀andmuchofthisgrowthhasbeenaccomplished 8"$  throughmergersandthelateralhiringofexperiencedlawyers.@` #  9      ׀Inthisenvironment, #,& thegenerationofrevenueandthemaximizationofprofithavebecomeimportant,if  notprimary,driversofthelawfirmsculture.A #  10       T   ` Atthesametimethatthestructureandsizeoffirmshavebeenchanging,so   havethecareergoalsandattitudesoflawyersthemselves.Aslateastwentyyears @  ago,itwasnotuncommonforlawyerstospendtheirentirecareerwiththelawfirm  4  thathiredthemrightoutoflawschool.Today,thereisincreasedmobilityamong   lawyers,anditisnotuncommonforassociatesandevenpartnerstochangefirms ,|  severaltimesduringtheircareerbecauseofmergersorfirmrestructuringorbecause   theydesiretoincreasetheirpersonalincomebycreatingnewfirms.B0 #  11      ׀Itisalso t becomingcommonforlawfirmstohiretemporarylawyerstoworkaparticularpiece h ofbusinesswithnoexpectationofcontinuedemploymentoncethebusinessis   completed. `  ` Thechangesinthelegalprofessionhavealsobeenaccompaniedbychanges  intherelationshipsbetweenlawfirmsandtheirclients.Intodayscompetitive,cost L consciousenvironment,clientswieldmorepowerthantheyoncedid.Clientsare @  nowmoreconsciousofthecostoflegalservices.Ratherthanremainingwithasingle  " lawyerorlawfirmastheyoncedid,D  #  12      ׀clientstodaywillfrequentlyshoparoundfor 8"$ legalservicesorwilllooktoinhouseattorneystoprovidetheseservices.Because #,& oftheincreasedcomplexityofthelegalmattersfacingclientsandthegrowing % ( specializationamonglawyers,itisalsoquitecommonforclientstoberepresented $'t"* bymorethanonelawyerorlawfirmatanygiventime. ($,  l*%.  ` Thesechangesinthelegallandscape,whethertheybelamentedorwelcomed,  havehadatendencytogeneratemoreconflictofinterestproblemsthaneverbefore.C #  13      ׀ T Theseproblemshaveplacedastrainontheethicsrulesgoverningtheconductof H lawyers.Thebenchandthebarhaverealizedthatthetraditionalrulesmustbe   adaptedtoprovidepracticalsolutionsfortheproblemscurrentlyfacinglawyersand @  clients.Theprofessionisnowengagedintheprocessofformulatingfunctionalrules  4  thatgiveproperweighttothediffering,andsometimescompeting,interestsofall   partiesconcerned.Thus,thetraditionalcoreprofessionalvaluesofclientloyalty,the ,|  preservationofaclientsconfidencesandsecrets,E #  14      ׀andtheavoidanceofthe   appearanceofprofessionalimproprietyG8 #  15      ׀arebeingreexaminedinlightof t prospectiveclientsinterestinretainingalawyeroftheirchoiceandthelegitimate h prerogativeoflawyerstoenhancetheirabilitytoearnalivelihoodintheirchosen   profession.F #  16      ׀Agreementconcerningtheproperwaytobalancethesepotentially ` competinginterestshasproventobeelusive,and,eventoday,thelegalprofessionhas T yettoreachaconsensusonmanyimportantissues.a #  17         ` Amongthemostintransigentethicsissuescurrentlyconfrontingtheprofession @  involvestheuseofscreeningarrangementstoavoidtheimputeddisqualificationof  " anentirelawfirmbecauseofasinglemembersconflictofinterestwithaformer 8"$ client.Forthepasttwentyfiveyears,lawyersandjudgeshavedebatedwhetherand #,& inwhatcircumstancesscreeningarrangementsshouldbeallowed.Thiscaserequires % (  ustorevisitthisissueatatimewhentheorganizedbarinTennesseeisexerting $'t"* increasingpressureonthecourtstopermittheuseofscreeningarrangementstoavoid  theseeminglyharsheffectsofimputeddisqualification. #  18       T   ` Theproprietyofusingscreeningarrangementshasprecipitatedapointed   debateamongpracticinglawyers,judges,andacademicians.Thosefavoringtheuse @  ofscreeningarrangementsinsistthattheyareanappropriatewaytoprotectclients  4  freeaccesstolawyersoftheirchoiceandtofacilitatelawyermobilitywithout   sacrificingclientconfidentiality.H  #  19      ׀Thoseopposingtheuseofscreeningarrangements ,|  insistthattheprofessionsancientobligationtoprotectaformerclientsconfidences   shouldnotbedilutedbylawyerspragmaticbusinessinterests.I  #  20      ׀Eventhemost t cursoryexaminationoftheliteratureonthesubjectrevealsthatthedebateoverthe h useofscreeningarrangementsbylawyersinprivatepracticeisfarfromsettledand   thattheprospectsofanearlyconsensusareguarded. `  ` TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasyettoprovideanauthoritativeinterpretation  ofTenn.S.Ct.R.8,DR5105(D),andtheTennesseeBarAssociationhasyetto L presentitsproposedrulestotheCourt.Thus,Tennesseesbenchandbarmustawait @  theCourtsdefinitiveguidanceconcerningtheviabilityofscreeningarrangements  " bylawyersinprivatelawfirms.Basedonthefactsofthiscase,wehavedetermined 8"$ thatthescreeningarrangementemployedbyWaller,Lansden,Dortch&Davisfor #,& Mr.Davisandhissecretarycannotpreventthedisqualificationoftheentirefirm.Mr. % ( Davisbecamedeeplyinvolvedinthefactsofthiscasewhenheservedasthe $'t"* Blackwoodsprimarylawyer.Accordingly,itisvirtuallycertainthatMr.Davis ($, obtainedsignificantconfidentialinformationfromtheBlackwoodswhilehewas  representingthemandthatthisinformationcould,ifdivulgedeitherpurposefullyor T accidentally,causematerialadverseeffectsontheBlackwoodsinthepresent H litigation.   @-D III.   4   ` Werecognizeattheoutsetthatthemostauthoritativesourcesfortheprinciples   neededtodecidethiscasearetherulesandopinionsoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt. t TheCourthastheexclusivepowertoregulatetheconductoflawyersinTennessee. h SeeInrePetitionofBurson,909S.W.2d768,773(Tenn.1995);SmithCountyEduc.   Assnv.Anderson,676S.W.2d328,333(Tenn.1984);seealsoRestatement(Third) ` oftheLawGoverningLawyers1cmt.c(ProposedFinalDraftNo.2,1998).All T lawyers,uponadmissiontothebar,becomeofficersoftheCourt,seeAndrewsv.  Bible,812S.W.2d284,291(Tenn.1991);Wardv.Alsup,100Tenn.619,739,46 L S.W.573,574(1898),andtherebybecomesubjecttothepoweroftheCourtto @  preventandpunishprofessionalmisconduct.SeeMemphis&ShelbyCountyBar  " Assnv.Vick,40Tenn.App.206,214,290S.W.2d871,875(1955). 8"$  ` Earlyinourhistory,thecourtsfashionedtherulesgoverningboththepractice % ( oflawandtheconductoflawyersfromcommonlawprinciplesandfromtheirown $'t"* understandingofthepracticeoflawandtheroleoflawyersinlitigation.Intheearly ($, partofthiscentury,however,theorganizedbar,motivatedtosomedegreebyself l*%. interestK #  21      ׀begantoplayamoreactiveroleinregulatingtheconductoflawyersby ,`'0  adoptingethicscodesfortheprofession.L@ #  22      ׀Thesecodes,forthemostpart,reflected -)2 therulesandprinciplesthathadbeenfashionedbythecourtsovertheyears.M #  23      ׀   Accordingly,therulesintheorganizedbarsearlyethicscodesvirtuallymirroredthe T judicialdecisionsregardinglawyerconduct. H  ` Astimewentby,thecourtsbegantocitetheorganizedbarsethicscodesas @  authorityfortheirdecisionsregulatingtheconductoflawyers.Intime,the  4  judiciarysrelianceonethicscodesthoroughlyblurredthelinebetweentheuseof   ethicscodesfordisciplinarypurposesandtheuseofethicscodestoregulatelawyers ,|  conductduringlitigation.P` #  24      ׀Eventually,somecourtsadoptedarestrainedapproach   leavingtheenforcementofethicscodestothebarsexistingdisciplinarymachinery. t See,e.g.,Armstrongv.McAlpin,625F.2d433,44546(2dCir.1980),vacatedon h othergrounds,449U.S.1106(1981).Othercourtshaverejectedthis handsoff   approachinfavorofaddressingdirectlyunethicalconductoccurringinconnection ` withpendinglitigation.See,e.g.,InreAmericanAirlines,972F.2d605,611(5th T Cir.1992).Tennesseescourtshavenothesitatedtorelyonethicscodeprovisions  toprotecttheintegrityofthejudicialprocessortherightsoflitigantswhenanethical L violationtaintsorthreatenstotaintatrialsfairness.SeeWoodsidev.Woodside,No. @  01A019503PB00121,1995WL623077,at*8(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.25,1995)  " (Koch,J.,concurring),perm.app.deniedconcurringinresultsonly(Tenn.Jan.8, 8"$ 1996)(describingthejudicialresolutionoffiveissuesusingtheCodeofProfessional #,& Responsibility). % (  ` Ethicscodeswereneverintendedtosupplantthecourtcreatedprinciplesof ($, professionalconductortopreventthecourtsfromcontinuingtorefineandapply l*%. theseprinciples.Forthegoodoftheprofession,thecourtshaveacontinuing ,`'0 obligationtosafeguardtheattorneyclientrelationshipandtomaintainthepublics -)2 confidenceintheintegrityofthelegalsystem.SeePanduitCorp.v.AllStatesPlastic X/*4 Mfg.Co.,744F.2d1564,1576(Fed.Cir.1984);Freemanv.ChicagoMusical 0L,6 InstrumentCo.,689F.2d715,721(7thCir.1982);InreEstateofWaters,647A.2d 2-8 Oa     1091,1098(Del.1994);Ciaffonev.EighthJudicialDist.Court,945P.2d950,953  (Nev.1997);Kalav.AluminumSmelting&RefiningCo.,688N.E.2d258,262(Ohio T 1998). H  ` In1908,theAmericanBarAssociationadopteditsfirstethicscodeknownas @  theCanonsofProfessionalEthics.TheTennesseeBarAssociationadoptedthefirst  4  thirtytwoofthesecanonsin1909,N #  25      ׀buttheTennesseeSupremeCourtdidnotplace   itsimprimaturonthesecanonsuntil1938.RP #  26      ׀Evensince1938,theTennessee ,|  SupremeCourthaspatterneditsrulesgoverningtheconductoflawyersafterthe   ethicscodesdraftedbytheAmericanBarAssociation._S #  27      _ t  ` TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,asadoptedbytheTennesseeSupreme   Court,hastheforceandeffectoflaw.SeeGraceyv.Maddin,769S.W.2d497,504 ` (Tenn.Ct.App.1989)(Koch,J.,dissenting);Kingv.King,No.894611,1989WL T 122981,at*11(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.18,1989)(Koch,J.,concurring)(NoTenn.R.  App.P.11applicationfiled).T #  28      ׀However,theCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityis L itselfdividedintoCanons,EthicalConsiderations,andDisciplinaryRules,andeach  ofthesedivisionshasdifferentauthoritativeweight.TheCanonsare statementsof T axiomaticnormsthat embodythegeneralconceptsfromwhichtheEthical H ConsiderationsandtheDisciplinaryRulesarederived.TheEthicalConsiderations   are aspirationalincharacterandrepresentobjectivestowardwhicheverymember @  oftheprofessionshouldstrive.Finally,theDisciplinaryRulesare mandatoryin  4  characterandstate theminimumlevelofconductbelowwhichnolawyercanfall   withoutbeingsubjecttodisciplinaryaction.SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.8,Preamble. ,|   ` TheTennesseeSupremeCourtisthechiefarbiterofthemeaningofitsown t rules.SeeInreGant,937S.W.2d842,846(Tenn.1996).However,in1981,the h CourtreluctantlyempoweredU` #  29      ׀theBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityandits   disciplinarycounseltoissueformalandinformaladvisoryethicsopinionsconstruing ` theCourtsownethicsrules.SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.9,26,WestPublishingCo., T TennesseeDecisions609614S.W.2datcxxxv.Theformalethicsopinions,which  onlytheBoardmayissue, constituteabodyofprinciplesandobjectivesuponwhich L membersofthebarcanrelyforguidanceinmanyspecificsituations.Tenn.S.Ct. @  R.9,26.4(a).X #  30      ׀However,eventhoughformalethicsopinionsarebindingonthe  " Boardandthepersonrequestingtheopinion,Y  #  31      ׀theyarenotbindingonthecourts.See 8"$ InreYoungblood,895S.W.2d322,325(Tenn.1995);Statev.Jones,726S.W.2dat #,& 51920.Nonetheless,formalethicsopinionscanprovideguidancetothecourts % ( becausetheyreflectthelegalprofessionsconsideredopinionsregardingthe $'t"* appropriatestandardsofpractice.SeeKingv.King,1989WL122981,at*12(Koch, ($, J.,concurring). l*%.  ,`'0 @.D IV.    ` Thepartieshavepresentedstarklydifferentportrayalsofthelegalprofessions H currentattituderegardingscreeningarrangements.Ononehand,Waller,Lansden,   Dortch&Davisassertsthatscreeningarrangementsintheprivatesectorhavebecome @  generallyacceptedandarecurrentlybeingwidelyused;whiletheBlackwoodsassert  4  thatscreeningarrangementshavefallenintodisfavor.Bothpartiesare,atleastin   part,correct.Thereis,however,currentlynoconsensusamongthemembersofthe ,|  legalprofessionconcerningthenecessaryingredientsofscreeningarrangementsor   thecircumstancesinwhichascreeningarrangementmaybeusedtoavoidthe t consequencesoftheimputeddisqualificationdoctrine. h @.D A. ` @[[ DTheConflictofInterestRules  T  ` Thefiduciaryrelationshipbetweenalawyerandaclientrequiresthelawyerto L exercisetheutmostgoodfaithtoprotecttheclientsinterests.SeeAlexanderv. @  Inman,974S.W.2d689,69394(Tenn.1998);Fitchv.MidlandBank&TrustCo.,  " 737S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).Lawyersmustpreservetheirclients 8"$ confidencesandsecrets,exerciseindependentjudgmentontheirclientsbehalf,and #,& representtheirclientzealouslywithintheboundsofthelaw.SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.8, % ( Canons4,5&7;Dyerv.Farley,No.01A019506CH00229,1995WL638542,at $'t"* *56(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.17,1995)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). ($, Theymustalsoavoidservingtwoclientswhoseinterestsareadversetoeachother. l*%. SeeStatev.Locust,914S.W.2d554,557(Tenn.Crim.App.1995). ,`'0  ` Theprohibitionagainstservingtwomastersisenforcedusingconflictof X/*4 interestrulesdevelopedbythecourtslongbeforetheorganizedbarbeganadopting 0L,6 ethicscodes.SeeRestatement(Third)oftheLawGoverningLawyers1cmt.b,at 2-8 3(ProposedFinalDraftNo.21998).Manyoftheconflictofinterestruleshavenow D4/: beenincorporatedintotheorganizedbarsethicscodes.SeeHenriksenv.GreatAm. 581<  Sav.&Loan,14Cal.Rptr.2dat186;Hamilton&Coan,supranote20,at66; 72> Restatement(Third)oftheLawGoverningLawyers,Forward,atxxiiixxiv(Proposed  FinalDraftNo.1,1996). T   ` Aconflictofinterestariseswheneveralawyerisplacedinapositionof   dividedloyaltiesacircumstanceinwhichalawyersregardforthedutyowedtoone @  clienttendstoleadtodisregardofthedutyowedtoanotherclient.SeeStatev.Tate,  4  925S.W.2dat552.Toavoidconflictsofinterest,lawyersareprohibitedfrom   undertakingtorepresentaclientwhoseinterestsareadversetothoseofoneofthe ,|  lawyersotherclients.SeeStatev.Phillips,672S.W.2d427,43031(Tenn.Crim.   App.1984);Autryv.State,1Tenn.Crim.95,98,430S.W.2d808,809(1967). t  ` Theseconflictofinterestprohibitionscontinuetogovernalawyersconduct   afterheorsheisnolongerrepresentingaclient.SeeMillsv.Crane,No.66,1987 ` WL9165,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.10,1987),perm.app.denied(Tenn.July27, T 1987);AmericanNatlBankv.Bradford,28Tenn.App.239,262,188S.W.2d971,  981(1945);Tenn.S.Ct.R.8,EC46.Z #  32      ׀Infact,theycontinueafterthedeathofa L clientorformerclient.SeeRestatement(Third)oftheLawGoverningLawyers112 @  cmt.2,at280(ProposedFinalDraftNo.11996).Therefore,alawyermaynot  " representinterestsmateriallyadversetothoseofaformerclientifthesubjectmatter 8"$ ofthenewrepresentationissubstantiallyrelatedtothesubjectmatteroftheprevious #,& representation.SeeStatev.Hoggett,No.01C019003CR00073,1990WL172632, % ( at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.Nov.9,1990)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled); $'t"* Millsv.Crane,1987WL9165,at*5. ($,  ` Theapplicationoftheconflictofinterestprohibitionstoindividuallawyersis ,`'0 relativelystraightforward.Alawyermustnotsimultaneouslyrepresenttwoormore -)2 personswhohaveadverseinterestsinthesamesubjectmatter.SeeTenn.S.Ct.R. X/*4 8,DR5105(A),EC515;Statev.Tate,925S.W.2dat552.Likewise,alawyermust 0L,6 notswitchsidesduringanongoingdispute.SeeHenriksenv.GreatAm.Sav.&Loan, 2-8 14Cal.Rptr.2dat187;StraubClinic&Hosp.v.Kochi,917P.2d1284,1290(Haw. D4/: 1996);Stateexrel.FreezerServs.,Inc.v.Mullen,458N.W.2d245,249(Neb.1990);  Kalav.AluminumSmelting&RefiningCo.,688N.E.2dat266.Finally,alawyer T cannotundertaketorepresentaclientwithinterestsadversetothoseofaformer H client.SeeMillsv.Crane,1987WL9165,at*4.   @.D B.   4  @ D TheImputedDisqualificationDoctrine     ` Thegrowthinthenumberandsizeoflawfirmsandtheincreasedcareer   mobilityoflawyershavecreatednewdimensionstoconflictofinterestproblems. t Inadditiontotheprimarydisqualificationrulesapplicabletoindividuallawyers, h secondaryorimputeddisqualificationrulesbecamenecessarytodealwithlawyers   practicinginafirmsetting.Developingandrefiningtheprinciplesforimputed ` disqualificationhasnotbeenaneasytask. T  ` Simplystated,thedoctrineofimputeddisqualificationprovidesthatifthe L conflictofinterestrulesrequirethedisqualificationofanindividuallawyer,thenall @  thatlawyersprofessionalcolleaguesarelikewisedisqualified.SeeLaskeyBros.of  " W.Va.,Inc.v.WarnerBros.Pictures,Inc.,224F.2d824,826(2dCir.1955); 8"$ Bateman,supranote8,at254;Hamilton&Coan,supranote20,at73;LeeA. #,& Pizzimenti,ScreenVerite:DoRulesAboutEthicalScreensReflecttheTruthAbout % ( RealLifeLawFirmPractice?,52U.MiamiL.Rev.305,310(1997).Thisprinciple $'t"* isbasedoncommonsenseassumptionsconcerningthewaylawyersworkinafirm ($, setting,includingthepersonalandfinancialrelationshipsamongmembersofalaw l*%. firmandthemotivationsforfirmmemberstoshareinformationandtosupporteach ,`'0 othersefforts.\ #  33      ׀Itisalsopremisedonthecommonlawrulethatpartnersaredeemed -)2 tobeagentsofoneanother.^@ #  34      ׀ X/*4  0L,6  ` Theessentialcomponentoftheimputeddisqualificationdoctrineisthe  presumptionthatlawyersassociatedinalawpractice,asagentsofoneanother,know T whattheotherlawyersinthefirmknow.SeePenegar,supranote9,at848.Thus, H itispresumedthatinformationregardingaclientthathasbeenimpartedtoone   memberofalawfirmhasbeensharedwith,andisknownby,theothermembersof @  thefirm.SeeStatev.Claybrook,1992WL17546,at*8.Whenaclientsconfidence  4  andsecretsareinvolved,thispresumptioniscommonlyreferredtoasthe   presumptionofsharedconfidences. ,|   ` By1969,thedoctrineofimputeddisqualificationhadbecomesowidely t acceptedthattheAmericanBarAssociationincludeditintheCodeofProfessional h Responsibility.f #  35      ׀SeeModelCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityDR5105(D)   (1969).TheAmericanBarAssociationbroadenedthe1969versionofDR5105(D) ` in1974torequireimputeddisqualificationofaffiliatedlawyerswheneveran T individuallawyerbecomesdisqualifiedunderanydisciplinaryrule.SeeModelCode  ofProfessionalResponsibilityDR5105(1974).`  #  36      ׀The1974versionofDR5105(D) L iscurrentlypartofTennesseesCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.SeeTenn.S. @  Ct.R.8,DR5105(D).d  #  37        "  ` Theimputeddisqualificationdoctrineinboththe1969and1974versionsof #,& DR5105(D)didnotdirectlyaddressconflictsofinterestarisingwhenapersonally % ( disqualifiedlawyerjoinsafirmthatwouldnototherwisebedisqualified.However, $'t"* whenthisissuereachedthecourts,moststateandfederalcourtsinvokedtheimputed ($, disqualificationdoctrine,citingDR5105(A)&(D),DR4101(thepreservationof  aclientsconfidencesandsecrets),andCanon9(theavoidanceofanappearanceof T impropriety).Thesedecisionswerenotwellreceivedinsomequartersofthelegal H professionwhobelievedthatthe1974versionofDR5105(D)wasmuchtoobroad   andthatitgavetoomuchleewaytothecourts.g #  38      ׀Accordingly,theselawyerssetout @  tofindaremedyfortheirpredicamentandeventuallydecidedthatinternalscreening  4  arrangementssimilartothoseusedbyfinancialinstitutionstopreventinternal   communicationbetweendepartmentscouldbeadaptedforusebythelegal ,|  profession.e #  39      ׀Intheory,theseinternalscreeningarrangementswouldinsulatetherest   ofthefirmfromthepersonallyconflictedlawyerandwouldtherebyprovideevidence t sufficienttorebutthepresumptionofsharedconfidences. h  ` Oneyearafterthe1974amendmenttoDR5105(D),theAmericanBar ` Association,followingintensivelobbyingbyWashingtonandNewYorklawfirms,h  #  40       T modifieditstraditionalstanceregardingimputeddisqualification.Citingthe  governmentsneedforcompetentlawyers,theABAsCommitteeonEthicsand L ProfessionalResponsibilityapprovedtheuseofscreeningarrangementsforformer @  governmentlawyerseventhoughtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitydidnot  " mentiontheuseofscreeningarrangements.SeeABACommitteeonEthicsand 8"$ ProfessionalResponsibility,FormalOp.342(1975).Twoyearslater,theUnited #,& StatesCourtofClaimsfollowedFormalOp.342,seeKesselhautv.UnitedStates,555 % ( F.2d791,793(Ct.Cl.1977),andwithinseveralyears,thefederalcourtsbeganto $'t"* viewFormalOp.342asanamendmenttotheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility. ($, SeeFields,supranote11,at243. l*%.  ,`'0  ` EventhoughthereasoningofFormalOp.342andKesselhautv.UnitedStates  hasbeenquestioned,i #  41      ׀theapprovaloftheuseofscreeningarrangementsforformer T governmentlawyersemboldenedtheproponentsofscreeningarrangements,andthey H continuedtopressforwardontwofrontstogainapprovalofscreeningarrangements   forlawyersinprivatepractice.First,theycontinuedtheireffortstopersuadethe @  courtsthatevidenceofthepromptuseofscreeningarrangementsshouldrebutthe  4  presumptionofsharedconfidences.Second,theysetouttoamendtheethicsrules   toincludeprovisionsexplicitlyapprovingtheuseofscreeningarrangementsinthe ,|  privatesector.Asmatterscurrentlystand,theeffortstoamendtheethicscodeshave   bornemorefruitthantheeffortstoconvincecourtsthatscreeningarrangementsare t thepanaceaforimputeddisqualificationproblems. h @.D C. ` @  "DChangesintheEthicsCodes  T  ` Thefirstmodernefforttorewritetheprofessionsethicscodesbeganin1977 L whentheAmericanBarAssociationcreatedtheCommissionontheEvaluationof @  ProfessionalStandards(commonlyknownasthe KutakCommission)andended  " in1983withtheadoptionoftheModelRulesofProfessionalConduct.TheKutak 8"$ Commissioneventuallyconcludedthatnothinglessthanacomprehensive #,& reformulationoftheethicalstandardsofthelegalprofessionwascalledfor.Between % ( 1979and1982,theKutakCommissionproducedfourmajordraftsofnewethicsrules $'t"* thatentirelyreworkedthestructureandsubstanceoftheCodeofProfessional ($, Responsibility.j #  42      ׀Ratherthanreflectingconsensus,thesedraftspromptedcontroversy l*%.  anddissent.Infact,twootherprofessionalorganizationsproducedcompetingethics ,`'0 codes.k #  43      ׀Therangeofopinionsregardingtheappropriatestandardsfortheprofession  reflectedtheethicalpluralismamongthemembersofthebar.lp #  44       T   ` TwomatterstakenupintheprocessofadoptingtheModelRulesof   ProfessionalConductarerelevanttothisappeal.First,boththeKutakCommission @  andtheHouseofDelegatesdecidedthatCanon9's appearanceofimpropriety  4  standardthathadfiguredsoprominentlyinthedevelopmentoftheimputed   disqualificationrulewastooindefinite.m #  45      ׀Accordingly,theModelRulesof ,|  ProfessionalConductexplicitlyrejectthe appearanceofimproprietystandardas    subjectiveand questionbegging.SeeABAModelRulesofProfessionalConduct t Rule1.10cmt.(LawyersMovingBetweenFirms;thirdparagraph)(1983). h  ` Thesecondissuegermanetothiscaseinvolvestheuseofscreening ` arrangementsbylawyersinprivatepracticetoavoidtheconsequencesoftheimputed T disqualificationdoctrine.TheKutakCommissionsinitialdiscussiondraftissuedin  January1980didnotexplicitlyaddresstheimputeddisqualificationdoctrineorthe L useofscreeningarrangements;however,thedraftconsideredattheAmericanBar @  AssociationsFebruary1983meetingdid.Bythistime,proposedRule1.10hadbeen  " rewrittentoaddressimputeddisqualificationdirectly.n  #  46      ׀TheCommissionadded 8"$ CommentNo.11toRule1.10containingfactorsforthecourtstoconsiderin #,& determiningwhetherimputeddisqualificationwasrequiredinaparticularcase.One % (  ofthefactorswas thenatureandprobableeffectivenessofscreeningmeasures.p8 #  47      ׀ $'t"* Thus,thisversionoftheproposedCode,atleastimplicitly,allowedlawyersin  privatepracticetousescreeningarrangements.o #  48       T   ` ProposedRule1.10anditscommentswererewrittenbetweentheHouseof   DelegatesFebruary1983andMay1983meetings.TheCommissionreplacedthe @  originalSection1.10(b)withanewSection1.10(b)dealingwithlawyersbecoming  4  associatedwithafirmandwithanewSection1.10(c)dealingwithlawyers   terminatingtheirassociationwithafirm.q #  49      ׀TheCommissionalsodeletedthe ,|  commentcontainingthefactorsfordeterminingwhethertoinvoketheimputed   disqualificationrule.r( #  50       t  ` TheModelRulesofProfessionalConductadoptedbytheAmericanBar   AssociationsHouseofDelegatesinAugust1983differedsignificantlyfromthe ` originalKutakCommissionproposals.Ultimately,boththeKutakCommissionand T theAmericanBarAssociationrejectedtheuseofscreeningmechanismsforprivate  lawyersbutapprovedtheiruseforformergovernmentlawyers,justasFormalOp. L 342haddonenineyearsearlier.u #  51      ׀However,thecommentstothe1983versionof @  Rule1.10implythatmandatoryimputeddisqualificationisnottheanswerinevery  " caseandthatthecourtsshoulddecidethesequestionsonacasebycasebasisandthat 8"$ thepresumptionofsharedconfidencesshouldbetemperedbythepersonally #,& conflictedlawyersactualroleinthepresentandformerfirmandhisorheractual % ( knowledgeofprivilegedinformation.xx  #  52       $'t"*  ` TheAmericanBarAssociationsreconsiderationofprofessionalethicsdidnot l*%. endwiththeadoptionoftheModelRulesofProfessionalConduct.Theseruleshave ,`'0 beenamendedtwentyeighttimessincetheiradoptionin1983.SeeAnn.Model  RulesofProfessionalConduct,supranote45,atvii.Amendmentsadoptedin1989 T movedseveralprovisionsinoriginalRule1.10(b)andthecorrespondingcomments H toRule1.09andbroadenedRule1.9(c).SeeAnn.ModelRulesofProfessional   Conduct,supranote45,at579.Intheirpresentform,Rules1.9and1.10(andRule @  1.11dealingwithformergovernmentlawyers)departsignificantlyfromtheformand  4  substanceoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Theytailortheimputed   disqualificationrulestoparticularconflictsofinterestsituationsthatrequirefirm ,|  disqualificationbecauseofaspecificdangerofconflictingrepresentationbyother   membersofthefirm.SeeWolfram,supranote33,7.6.2,at395.Theyalso t envisionthatalawyerjoiningafirmshouldbedeemedtocarryhisorheractual h knowledgeonlyandthatthenewfirmsstatusshouldbedecidedaccordingly.See   Hazard&Hodes,supranote33,1.1:207,at33536. `  ` Theeffortstoamendtheethicsrulestoincludeexplicitapprovalforscreening  arrangementsprovedtobemoresuccessfulinthecontextofthedraftingandapproval L oftheAmericanLawInstitutesRestatement(Third)oftheLawGoverningLawyers. @  Section204(2)oftheRestatement,approvedonMay12,1998,permitsprivatelaw  " firmstousescreeningarrangementstoavoidtheapplicationoftheimputed 8"$ disqualificationdoctrine.FollowingthefinalapprovaloftheRestatement,the #,& AmericanBarAssociationannouncedthecreationoftheCommissiononthe % ( EvaluationoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct(popularlyknownas Ethics2000") $'t"* toevaluatetheModelRulesofProfessionalConductinlightofthevariationsinthe ($, rulesasadoptedatthestatelevelandtheprovisionsintheRestatement. #  53      ׀TheEthics l*%. 2000Commissionhasalreadycirculatedproposedrevisionstothecomments ,`'0 associatedwithRule1.10regardingtheuseofscreeningarrangementsfornonlawyer -)2 supportpersonnelandlawyers.Theseproposalswouldpermittheuseofscreening X/*4 arrangementsfornonlawyersupportpersonnelwhochangejobsandfornewlawyers 0L,6 whoworkedatanopposinglawfirmaslawclerksbutwouldnotpermittheuseof 2-8  screeningarrangementstocureconflictsofinterestcreatedwhenapersonally D4/: disqualifiedlawyerchangesfirms.SeeCurrentReports,Laws.Man.onProfCond.  (ABA/BNA)259(June9,1999). T   ` EvenastheAmericanBarAssociationandtheAmericanLawInstitute   consideredtheproprietyofscreeningarrangementsforlawyersinprivatepractice, @  severalstatesamendedtheirethicsrulestopermittheuseofscreeningarrangements.  4  Todate,sixjurisdictionshaveamendedtheirethicsrulestoapprovetheuseof   screeningarrangementsbyprivatelawyers.t #  54      ׀Onejurisdictionhasapprovedtheuse ,|  ofscreeningarrangementsbylawstudentsandlawyersaffiliatedwiththelaw   schoolslegalclinic.vP #  55      ׀Anotherjurisdictionhasnotspecificallyapprovedtheuseof t thescreeningarrangementsbuthasadoptedthedraftcommentstoABAModelCode h ofProfessionalConductRule1.10listingscreeningarrangementsamongthefactors   thatthecourtshouldconsiderwhendeterminingwhethertoinvoketheimputed ` disqualificationdoctrine.y #  56      ׀ T  ` Inthreejurisdictionsthathavenotamendedtheirethicsrules,administrative L disciplinarybodieshaveissuedopinionsapprovingtheuseofscreening @  arrangements.LikeTennesseeBoardofProfessionalResponsibilitysFormalEthics  " Op.89F118(Mar.10,1989),theOhioBoardofCommissionersonGrievancesand 8"$ Disciplinehasapprovedtheuseofscreeningarrangementsbymembersoftheprivate #,& bar.SeeOhioBd.ofCommrsonGrievancesandDisciplineAdvisoryOp.89013 % ( (May30,1989),1989WL535018(OhioBd.Comm.Griev.Disp.);Hamilton&Coan, $'t"* supranote20,at8283n.105.Anotherjurisdictionsethicsadvisorycommitteehas ($, approvedtheuseofscreeningarrangementsbutonlywhentheformerclienthas l*%. approvedtheformerlawyersnewfirmsrepresentationoftheadverseparty.See ,`'0 S.C.BarEthicsAdv.Comm.Op.9223(Oct.1992),1992WL810439 -)2 (S.C.Bar.Eth.Adv.Comm.).  X/*4  0L,6 @.DD.    TheCourtsResponsetotheImputedDisqualificationDoctrineand T toScreeningArrangements  l  ` Mostcourtscurrentlyemployathreestepapproachtoimputeddisqualification   issues.Thefirststepinvolvesdeterminingwhetherasubstantialrelationshipexists X  betweenthesubjectmatteroftheformerrepresentationandthesubjectmatterofthe  L  subsequentadverserepresentation.Thesecondstepinvolvesdeterminingwhether   thelawyerwhohaschangedfirmsispersonallydisqualifiedundertheapplicable D  conflictofinterestrules.Thethirdstepinvolvesdeterminingwhetherthelawyers 8 newfirmmustalsobedisqualifiedfromrepresentingthepartywithaninterest  adversetotheinterestsofthepersonallyconflictedlawyersformerclient. 0  ` The substantialrelationshipinquiryisuniversallyacceptedasthestarting x pointforthedisqualificationanalysis.z #  57      ׀Whileithasseveralformulations,theinquiry l examines(1)thescopeoftheformerrepresentation,(2)whetheritisreasonableto  inferthatconfidentialinformationwouldhavebeengiventoalawyerrepresenting d aclientinsuchmatters,and(3)whethertheinformationisrelevanttotheissues  X  beingraisedinthelitigationpendingagainsttheformerclient.SeeLaSalleNatl !" Bankv.CountyofLake,703F.2d252,25556(7thCir.1983).Ifthecourtfindsthat P#$ thereisnosubstantialrelationshipbetweenthesubjectmatteroftheformerand $D & presentrepresentations,theinquiryendsbecausetherecanbenoconflictofinterest &!( betweenthelawyerandhisorherformerclientorbetweentheformerclientandthe <(#* lawyersnewlawfirm.If,however,thecourtfindsthatasubstantialrelationship )0%, exists,thenthecourtmustdeterminewhetherthelawyershouldbedisqualified. +&.  ` Therearetwobasesfordisqualifyingthelawyerifthecourtfindsasubstantial .*2 relationshipbetweenthesubjectmatterofthepresentandformerrepresentations. p0+4 First,thelawyercouldbedisqualifiedifheorshehasaprimaryconflictofinterest 2d-6 resultingfromthelawyersdirectexposuretotheformerclientsconfidential 3/8 information.Second,thelawyer,liketherestofthelawyersformerfirm,couldbe \50: disqualifiedifheorshehasasecondaryconflictofinterestarisingfromthe  presumptionofsharedconfidences. T  ` Amajorityofcourtsholdthatthepresumptionofsharedconfidenceswith   regardtotheinformationreceivedbythelawyersformerfirmisirrebuttableoncea @  substantialrelationshipbetweenthepresentandformerrepresentationshasbeen  4  established.SeeArkansasv.DeanFoodsProds.Corp.,605F.2d380,38485(8th   Cir.1979),overruledonothergroundsbyInreMultiPieceRimProds.Liab. ,|  Litigation,612F.2d377,378(8thCir.1980);EmleIndus.v.Pantentex,Inc.,478   F.2d562,57071(2dCir.1973);Kochv.KochIndus.,798F.Supp.1525,1536(D. t Kan.1992). #  58      ׀Othercourtshaveheldthatthepresumptioncanberebuttedifthe h lawyershowsthatheorshewasnotprivytoanyconfidentialinformation.This   approachisnotwidelyacceptedandhasgenerallybeenfollowedonlyincases ` involvingassociatesoflargefirmswhoperformedminortaskssuchasresearching T pointsoflaw.SeeSilverChryslerPlymouth,Inc.v.ChyslerMotorsCorp.,518F.2d  751,75657(2dCir.1975)(differentiatingbetweenlawyerswhobecomeheavily L involvedinthefactsofaparticularmatterandthosewhoenterbrieflyonthe @  periphery);Ann.ModelRulesofConduct,supranote45,at15759;Bateman,supra  " note8,at253. 8"$  ` Oncethepartyseekingdisqualificationestablishesaprimafaciecase,the % ( burdenofproofshiftstothelawyerandthefirmwhosedisqualificationissoughtto $'t"* demonstratewhytheyshouldnotbedisqualified.SeeSLCLtd.v.BradfordGroup ($, West,Inc.,999F.2d464,468(10thCir.1993);Normanv.Norman,970S.W.2d270, l*%. 274(Ark.1998);Koulisisv.Rivers,730So.2d289,292(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999); ,`'0 Heringerv.Haskell,536N.W.2d362,365(N.D.1995);Hazard&Hodes,supranote -)2 33,1.10:208,at338.5.Thisrebuttaleffortshouldnotforceeitherpartytoreveal X/*4 theformerclientsconfidentialinformation.SeeWolfram,supranote33,7.6.3,at  399;Fields,supranote11,at237.Anydoubtsregardingtheexistenceofanasserted T conflictofinterestshouldberesolvedinfavorofdisqualification.SeeWestinghouse H Elec.Corp.v.GulfOilCorp.,588F.2d221,225(7thCir.1978);Koulisisv.Rivers,   730So.2dat292;Angletonv.EstateofAngleton,671N.E.2d921,928(Ind.Ct.App. @  1996);DowChem.Co.v.Mahlum,970P.2d98,123(Nev.1998);Herbertv.  4  Haytaian,678A.2d1183,1189(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1996);Burkesv.Hales,   478N.W.2d37,41(Wis.Ct.App.1991). ,|   ` Ifthereisasubstantialrelationshipbetweentheformerandpresent t representationsandifthelawyerwhohaschangedfirmsispersonallydisqualified h fromrepresentingthepresentclientbecauseofaconflictofinterestregardingthe   formerclient,thenthefinalstepoftheanalysisistodeterminewhetherthelawyers ` newfirmshouldbedisqualifiedbyimplication.Forthosecourtsfollowingthe T traditionalviewthatthepresumptionofsharedconfidencesisirrebuttable,imputed  disqualificationofthenewfirmismandatory.SeeABAComm.onEthicsand L ProfessionalResponsibility,FormalOp.33(1931);ABAModelCodeofProfessional @  ResponsibilityDR5105(D);ABAModelRulesofProfessionalConduct1.10(b)  " (1983);Bateman,supranote8,at254,266n.105;Fields,supranote11,at23637 8"$ n.36.Othercourts,believingthatmandatoryimputeddisqualificationcastsan #,& unnecessarilywideshadow,arereluctanttoinvokethedoctrinetodisqualifythenew % ( lawfirmexceptasalastresort.Forthesecourts,thepresumptionofshared $'t"* confidencesamongthelawyerandhisorherassociatesatthenewfirmisrebuttable. ($, SeeFreemanv.ChicagoMusicalInstrumentCo.,689F.2d715,72223(7thCir. l*%. 1982). ,`'0  ` Courtsviewingthepresumptionofsharedconfidencesasrebuttablemust X/*4 balancetheformerclientslegitimaterighttobefreefromapprehensionthatits 0L,6 confidentialinformationwillberevealedwiththepartysinterestinchoosinghisor 2-8 herownlawyerandwiththeformerlawyersinterestinfollowinghisorhercareer D4/: pathtoitsbestadvantage.SeeBarragreev.TriCountyElec.Coop,Inc.,950P.2d 581< 1351,1357(Kan.1997);Gellmanv.Hilal,607N.Y.S.2d853,855(Sup.Ct.1994). 72> Inthisbalancingprocess,thefirstclientsrighttopreserveitsconfidential 094@ informationisentitledtogreaterweightthanthelaterclientsrighttoretaincounsel  ofitsownchoosing,seeDonohoev.ConsolidatedOperating&Prod.Corp.,691F. T Supp.109,118(N.D.Ill.1988);Stateexrel.FirstTIERBank,N.A.,v.Buckley,503 H N.W.2d838,842(Neb.1993),aswellastheemploymentandstaffinginterestsofthe   incominglawyerandthenewlawfirm.SeeKalav.AluminumSmelting&Refining @  Corp.,688N.E.2dat267(holdingthatalawfirmmayberequiredtosubordinateits  4  desiretoaugmentitsstafftoitsdutiestoitsclients).    ` Lawfirmsseekingtoavoidtheeffectoftheimputeddisqualificationrulemust   provetheircasebyclearandeffectiveproof.SeeSchiesslev.Stephens,717F.2d417, t 420(7thCir.1983);Freemanv.ChicagoMusicalInstrumentCo.,689F.2dat723; h Nelsonv.GreenBuilders,Inc.,823F.Supp.1439,1448(E.D.Wis.1993);Statev.   Tate,925S.W.2dat55758.Asageneralmatter,lawfirmshaveattemptedtorebut ` thepresumptionofsharedconfidencesintwoways.Injurisdictionsgovernedbya T versionoftheModelRulesofProfessionalConduct,firmsundertaketoprovethatthe  movinglawyerdidnothaveaprimaryconflictofinterestresultingfromhisorher L directreceiptofconfidentialinformationfromaformerclientoftheformerfirm.} #  59      ׀ @  SeeTrustcoBankofN.Y.v.Melino,625N.Y.S.2d803,80607(Sup.Ct.1995);  " Hazard&Hodes,supranote33,1.10:208;Bateman,supranote8,at268.Law 8"$ firmshavealsosoughttoavoidtheeffectsoftheimputeddisqualificationrule #,& throughtheuseofscreeningarrangements.SeeSchiesslev.Stephens,717F.2dat % ( 421;Bateman,supranote8,at254;Penegar,supranote9,at859.Becausescreening $'t"* arrangementsarenowgenerallyacceptedwhenaprivatefirmemploysaformer ($, governmentlawyer,theselawfirmsassertthatthereisnosubstantivedifference l*%. betweenlawyersmovingfromgovernmenttotheprivatesectorandlawyersmoving ,`'0 betweenprivatefirms.SeeManningv.Waring,Cox,James,Sklar&Allen,849F.2d -)2 at226;Ann.ModelRulesofProfessionalConductRule1.9,supranote45,at159. X/*4   0L,6  ` Theuseofscreeningarrangementsforlawyersmovingfromoneprivatefirm   toanotherremainshighlycontroversial,seeHamilton&Coan,supranote20,at59, T andhasnotbeenapprovedbyamajorityofthecourtsthathavebeensquarely H presentedwiththeissue.Currently,UnitedStatesCourtsofAppealsforfour   circuits,~ #  60      ׀fiveUnitedStatesDistrictCourts,@ #  61      ׀andcourtsinsixstates  #  62      ׀haveapproved @  theprivatesectoruseofscreeningarrangements.Atthesametime,UnitedStates  4  CourtsofAppealinfivecircuitshavedeclinedtoapprovescreeningarrangements.  #  63      ׀   Likewise,UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsintwocircuits,_ #  64      _ԀeightUnitedStates ,|  DistrictCourts,@ #  65      ׀andcourtsintenstates" #  66      ׀haverejectedtheuseofscreening