The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted this rule on January 20, 2004. It entered into force on 1 March 2004 and has not been amended since. This rule is identical to the ABA model rule of Prof`l Conduct 1.12 (2013). Under the previous model rule, the individual disqualification of a former judge or arbitrator was not awarded to a partner in a law firm if the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) were met. The ABA stipulated that mediators and other neutral third parties should be treated in the same way, since (1) less confidential information is generally obtained in this proceeding than if the lawyer represents clients in a mandate-lawyer relationship, and (2) although the neutral third party generally owes the parties an obligation of secrecy, it is not the same obligation of secrecy, which is due in accordance with Rule 1.6. The ABA`s Ethics Commission 2000 also heard testimony that third-party neutrals do not share information with other lawyers in the firm in the same way as lawyers representing clients. Finally, the ABA was concerned that not allowing screening would affect the extent to which lawyers act as neutral third parties, particularly in voluntary alternative dispute resolution programs. See ABA Ethics 2000 Commission Revision Notes to Model Rule 1.12 (2002). 2. The parties and any court having jurisdiction shall be informed thereof without delay in writing so that they can establish compliance with the provisions of this Article.
This model rule defines the scope of disclosure required to include immediate family members as well as business partners and associates.44 This domain follows Model Rules 1.7 (commentary 11) and 1.10. However, it does not follow canon 3(E)(1)(d) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. [5] If a legally neutral lawyer volunteers to act as a neutral at the request of a court, authority or other group for a de minimis and pro bono publico period, Article b)(2) recognizes that there may not be a possibility of full investigation, disclosure or challenge of forfeiture. In such circumstances, a neutral third party may need to conduct the minimum investigation and disclosure that may be appropriate in the circumstances. If the lawyer acknowledges from memory an interest or relationship that is relevant to the case, he or she must identify that interest or relationship. Otherwise, the lawyer should disclose the general nature of the neutral lawyer`s practice and his or her affiliation with law firms or other associations or other known disqualifying circumstances.45 [6] In general, parties may choose to hire a lawyer as a neutral third party after the lawyer has disclosed the reasons why the lawyer could reasonably be perceived as non-neutral. However, paragraph (b)(3) imposes an obligation on the neutral lawyer to refuse service if the neutral lawyer considers that the disclosed cases or other circumstances would impede the impartiality of the impartial lawyer or otherwise jeopardize the integrity of the proceedings. In such cases, the neutral lawyer should refuse service, even if the parties agree to keep the lawyer neutral. [7] Paragraph (d) follows the wording of the 1977 Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes (AAA-ABA)46 and is intended to prevent the acquisition of future business through the acquisition of future business during the ongoing ADR proceedings. The parties may agree to waive this provision. The consensual waiver provision may avoid difficulties for neutral third parties responsible for settling or resolving a number of disputes with the same party, either through contractual appointments prior to the dispute resolution process or through multiple and simultaneous appointments or appointments while awaiting a particular case.
Rule 4.5.4: Conflicts of interest (a) Exclusion of neutral lawyers (1) A lawyer acting as a neutral third party shall not, in the course of an ADR proceeding, attempt to establish or acquire a financial, commercial, representative, neutral or personal relationship with a party, company or lawyer involved in the case in which the lawyer is a neutral party, unless all parties agree to full disclosure. (2) A lawyer who has acted as a neutral third party may not subsequently represent any party to the ADR proceeding (in which the neutral lawyer acted as a neutral) in the same or substantially related case, unless all parties agree after full disclosure. (3) A lawyer who has acted as a neutral third party may not represent a party that is contrary to a former party to ADR without the consent of the former party to ADR if the neutral lawyer has acquired information that is protected confidentially under this Model Rule. 4. Where the circumstances may reasonably give the impression that the neutral in the ADR process has been influenced by the expectation or expectation of a relationship or subsequent interest, a lawyer who has acted as a neutral third party may not subsequently acquire an interest in any part of the ADR proceeding for a period of one year or any other proceeding reasonably reasonable in the circumstances or a party to the ADR proceedings. in an essentially independent Matter – unless all parties agree after full disclosure. (b) Settle disputes against affiliated lawyers and eliminate credit (1) If a lawyer is disqualified by the Section (a), no lawyer associated with that lawyer may knowingly assume or continue to represent in any materially related or unrelated matter, unless the personally disqualified lawyer is reasonably protected from involvement in the matter; no fees will be deducted from the case; and all interested parties and all courts have been informed of the review in a timely and appropriate manner, unless the personally disqualified lawyer has provided the affiliated lawyer or his law firm with important confidential information about one of the parties to the SETTLEMENT proceedings….