When an attorney is screened from a case, they must completely disengage.

When a lawyer ends up being screened from a case, there’s one clean rule you should keep front and center: disengage completely. It’s a simple idea, but it’s built on a web of ethics, confidentiality, and fairness that keeps the legal process trustworthy. If you’re studying professional responsibility, this is one of those moments where the logic is straightforward, even when the stakes feel a little abstract.

A quick refresher on the setup

Think of a screening as an ethical wall. A firm might bring in a lawyer who has some prior involvement, or a close relationship, with someone on the other side of a case. The goal of the wall is to prevent the sharing of confidential information and to stop any subconscious (or conscious) influence on the matter. But here’s the catch: the wall only works if the screened attorney doesn’t touch the case at all. No emails about it, no file access, no chats about strategy—nothing that could sway outcomes or leak secrets.

In our scenario, the correct choice is straightforward. The attorney must completely disengage. Why? Because even a hint of involvement could create a perception of impropriety or actually leak sensitive information, which could tilt the playing field and undermine the integrity of the proceedings. The protection of the client’s confidences and the fairness of the process rely on that clear boundary.

Let’s break down what “complete disengagement” actually means in practice

Here’s the thing: disengagement isn’t just about a teammate moving desks in the office. It’s a structured separation designed to prevent any cross-pollination of information.

• No access to confidential files or communications: The screened attorney should not have any reading access to case documents, emails, or notes that are relevant to the matter. They shouldn’t see draft strategies or confidential client information.

• No participation in case discussions: They aren’t part of meetings, calls, or brainstorming sessions related to the case. They don’t weigh in on strategy, witness questions, or settlement posture.

• No informal channels or shortcuts: Even casual mentions in hallways or quick “off the record” comments could breach the barrier. The separation has to be tangible and enforceable.

• Physical and digital boundaries: In many firms, this means the screened attorney is physically separated (different office spaces) and digitally separated (no access to matter-specific emails, shared drives, or collaboration tools related to the case).

• Clear internal policies: The firm usually documents screening procedures, assigns an ethics partner to monitor the situation, and provides a checklist to ensure the barrier holds. It’s not just good manners; it’s a formal safeguard.

Why the other possibilities don’t fit the screen

You might wonder why the other options don’t hold up under the ethics lens. Let’s unravel them one by one.

• B. They can advise their firm on the case

This sounds reasonable in a busy firm, but it violates the spirit of a screen. If the attorney is advising the firm on the case, they’re still connected to the matter in a meaningful way. They might learn things that shouldn’t be shared with others handling the case, and that risk defeats the purpose of the wall.

• C. They can monitor case developments

Monitoring developments implies continuing involvement. It could bring the barrier into conflict with duties of confidentiality and loyalty. Even routine updates could introduce the possibility of leakage or influence, which a proper screen is designed to prevent.

• D. They can participate in strategy meetings

Strategy meetings are the heart of case decision-making. Participation here means direct involvement, which a screen is meant to avoid. Keeping a seat at the table would blur boundaries and could enable the transfer of confidential insights.

In short, any form of ongoing interaction with the case—beyond a formal, documented wall—risks the integrity of the process. Complete disengagement is the protective line that keeps the process fair for all sides.

Real-world flavor: how lawyers actually implement this

Ethical walls aren’t decorative; they’re practical, everyday tools in big firms and tight-knit shops alike. Think of a scenario where a firm has some prior connection to a party. The leadership flags the potential conflict, sets up the wall, and communicates expectations clearly. The screened attorney might still be involved in other matters, but not this one. The rest of the firm can move forward on the case, with the wall ensuring information doesn’t flow where it shouldn’t.

This can feel like a weirdly deliberate separation, but it’s exactly what preserves trust in the legal system. Clients deserve to know their confidences aren’t slipping through the cracks, and the opposing party deserves confidence that the process isn’t tilted by hidden ties. The ethics rules designed to govern these situations aren’t about letting anger or resentment guide decisions; they’re about keeping the playing field level and predictable.

A few practical tips for students wrestling with this material

• Ground your understanding in the core idea: When there’s a potential conflict, the barrier must be airtight. If you hear “but there’s a way to stay engaged,” push back and ask, “Would you still have access to confidential information or influence the case?” If the answer is yes, that’s not a proper screen.

• Connect the rule to real-life outcomes: A completely disengaged attorney isn’t just a formality. It protects the client, protects the firm from liability, and protects the fairness of the proceedings. That trio is the backbone of professional responsibility.

• Tie it back to the Model Rules: The concept sits at the intersection of conflict rules (like preventing representation that’s adverse to a former client) and the duty of loyalty and confidentiality. While the exact rule numbers can vary by jurisdiction, the principle remains the same: avoid any information crossover.

• Remember the difference between disqualification and screening: Some folks mix these up. A disqualification is a formal exclusion from the case, while screening is a mechanism within a firm to enable other lawyers to handle the matter without breaching confidences. The key word here is boundary—clear, enforceable, verifiable.

• Use real-world language when you study: If you can describe disengagement in plain terms—no file access, no meetings, no strategic input—you’ll remember it when you’re faced with a scenario in a test setting or a real-world ethics question.

A concise takeaway, with the heart of the message

What’s the bottom line? When a lawyer is screened from a case, the right move is complete disengagement. That means no access to confidential information, no discussions about strategy, and no participation in the case at all. It’s a straightforward rule designed to protect clients, the firm, and the integrity of the system.

If you’re wrapping your head around MPRE-related ethics, keep this image in mind: a firm builds a protective wall, and the blocked attorney steps back entirely. The rest of the team can keep its focus on the matter at hand, while everyone else can trust that nothing slips through the cracks. It’s not glamorous, but it’s essential—and it’s a great example of how professional responsibility isn’t just about ticking boxes. It’s about safeguarding fairness with clear, defendable boundaries.

Final thought: when the wall is in place, the work feels more straightforward

Yes, it can be awkward to enforce strict disengagement. Yes, it requires discipline and sometimes tough conversations. But that clarity is what lets judges, clients, and colleagues trust the outcome. If you ever find yourself thinking, “Could there be a workaround?” pause. Remember the core aim: complete disengagement to prevent conflicts of interest and protect confidential information.

If this topic sparks curiosity, you’ll likely encounter more scenarios dressed in similar ethics themes. The common thread is simple but powerful: when in doubt, respect the boundary. The right choice will keep things clean, fair, and above reproach.

—

Want a quick refresher after this? Here’s a tiny recap you can skim:

• Screened attorneys must disengage completely from the case.

• Disengagement means no access to files, no meetings, and no strategic input.

• Choices that imply ongoing involvement undermine the integrity of the process.

• The practice hinges on the ethics framework that guards confidentiality and fairness.

That’s the heart of it: a sharp boundary, a fair outcome, and a system that holds up even under close scrutiny.