amendments to the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

the consent of the affected client or former client under
conditions stated in Rule 1.7 of these Rules. The conditions
stated in Rule 1.7 require the lawyer to determine that the
representation is not prohibited by Rule 1.7(b) and that each
affected client or former client has given consent to the
representation after consultation and confirmed in writing. In
some cases, the risk may be so severe that the conflict may not
be cured by client consent. For a discussion of the effectiveness
of client waivers of conflicts that might arise in the future, see
Comment [22] to Rule 1.7 of these Rules. For a definition of
consent after consultation, see Rule 1.0(c) of these Rules.
[8] Where a lawyer has joined a private firm after
having represented the government, imputation is governed by
Rule 1.11(b) and (c), not this Rule. Under Rule 1.11(d), where a
lawyer represents the government after having served clients in
private practice, nongovernmental employment or in another
government agency, former-client conflicts are not imputed to
government lawyers associated with the individually
disqualified lawyer. Furthermore, separate units of a
government agency, such as the office of attorney general, may
undertake concurrent representation that would otherwise
offend Rule 1.10(a), so long as no prejudice is suffered by any of
the clients.
[9] Paragraph (c) of Rule 1.10 is new. Like paragraph
(b), it applies when a lawyer moves from a private firm to
another firm, and is intended to create procedures similar in
some cases to those under Rules 1.11(a) and (b) of these Rules
for lawyers moving from a government agency to a private firm.
[10] A transitioning lawyer very well may have no
confidential information if the lawyer did no work on the matter
at the former firm and the matter was not the subject of
discussion with the lawyer generally, for example at firm or
working group meetings. The lawyer must search his or her files
and recollections carefully to determine whether he or she has
confidential information. The fact that the lawyer does not
immediately remember any details of the former client's
representation does not mean that he or she does not in fact
possess confidential information regarding the matter. However,
even if the lawyer has no confidential information about the
representation of the former client, the new firm is disqualified
unless all of the screening procedures are followed.
[11] In situations where the personally disqualified
lawyer was involved in a matter, or had confidential
information, the new firm will generally only be allowed to
handle the matter if the former client at the former law firm of
the personally disqualified lawyer consents and the new firm
reasonably believes that the representation will not be adversely
affected, all as required by Rule 1.7 of these Rules. This differs
- 53 ­