Under what condition may a lawyer represent a client if they previously served in a judicial or third-party neutral role?

A lawyer who previously served in a judicial or third-party neutral role may represent parties in a subsequent matter if they obtain informed written consent from the parties involved. This requirement helps ensure that there is transparency and that the parties are fully aware of any potential conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer's previous role. It acknowledges the importance of maintaining fairness and integrity in the legal process.

Informed consent signifies that the lawyer has explained the circumstances and any implications of the prior role, allowing clients to make an educated decision about whether to proceed with the lawyer's representation. This safeguard is essential in maintaining trust in the legal profession and protecting the rights of all parties.

The other options do not accurately capture the ethical requirements set forth by the Model Rules. For instance, representing any party in any proceeding without consent would violate conflict of interest rules. Similarly, the idea that representation is restricted to clients of similar backgrounds is not relevant to the ethical considerations at play, and waiting six months unnecessarily complicates the matter without a basis in the rules. Thus, obtaining informed written consent strikes the right balance between allowing lawyers to use their experiences while upholding ethical standards.