Which scenario would violate MRPC Rule 1.12?

The scenario that would violate MRPC Rule 1.12 involves a former judge representing a client they ruled on previously. This rule specifically addresses the restrictions placed on judges after their service has ended, particularly related to conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety. It aims to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary by preventing a situation where a former judge could exert undue influence or have an unfair advantage through prior knowledge of a case or relationship with the parties involved.

In this context, when a former judge takes on representation for a client on a case they previously adjudicated, it creates a clear conflict as they possess specific insights and familiarity with the case dynamics that other attorneys would not have. This not only undermines the fairness of legal proceedings but also could lead to ethical dilemmas regarding confidentiality and impartiality.

Other scenarios listed do not raise the same ethical concerns. For example, a former judge participating in a judicial seminar or providing legal advice generally does not involve representing one party in a dispute or leveraging prior adjudicative authority. Assisting in courtroom procedures could also be seen in a professional capacity that doesn’t violate the strictures imposed on former judges engaged in direct client representation related to cases they have previously handled.