Changes to Model Rules Impact Government Lawyers Changes to Model Rule 1.11 proposed by the Ethics 2000 Commission, which will be submitted to the ABA House of Delegates for approval, contain issues of grave concern to the membership of this Section about the Commission's proposed revisions to the existing conflict of interests rules as applied to government lawyers. In brief, the proposed changes would add two important limitations to those currently imposed by Rule 1.11: Instead of limiting disqualification to particular matters, a former government lawyer or officer would be barred from representing a private client contrary to the government's position in any matter "substantially related" to one on which the lawyer worked in government. The quoted term would be defined as it is in the case of former private clients under Rule 1.9. A current government lawyer would be barred from representing another government agency when a private lawyer could not so represent another private client under Rules 1.7 or 1.9. Our concerns are with the breadth of the prohibition with respect to the matters covered, as well as its application to governmental as well as private clients. We are concerned that this proposed rule will limit the ability of lawyers to move between the public and private sectors. In addition, because the proposed change would also apply the prohibitions within and among governments, we think it would also discourage movement of lawyers between governmental units. One unanticipated effect of the proposed rule may be to create two sub-bars, one consisting of private practitioners and the other consisting of public/ government-employed lawyers, a development we do not think is healthy for the profession. The ABA has been actively trying to promote the participation of government-employed lawyers in the ABA for about four years. We have been represented on this Task Force by Otto Hetzel of Washington, D.C. We believe these efforts are about to yield some results. The proposed changes to Rule 1.11 undercut these efforts. The Council will be voting on a motion to oppose these proposed changes at our next meeting in April. In addition, the proposed changes were opposed by the ABA Section on Administrative Law and Regulations and others. We would appreciate your support in conveying our concerns about these proposed changes to your state and local bar associations and to your state's representatives in the ABA House of Delegates who will be asked to vote on these measures at the Annual Meeting in Chicago in August.