Ashley Walker

Assignment 3
The issue is whether or not Mr. Simon violated his duty of confidentiality 1.6(a) or his
duty to his former clients 1.9(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mr. Simon is an intellectual property attorney who represents clients who have designed
and created new products for the market. He helps them secure the necessary trademarks,
copyrights, and patents to protect their products. Two years ago Mr. Simon represented the Taser
Company by assisting them with obtaining trademarks and patents for their new product, Taser
Pulse. Mr. Simon believes that the Taser Pulse will be a huge success once it is being sold on
the market. Therefore, Mr. Simon designs and patents a clothing line that has a built-in holster to
hold the new Taser Pulse. Mr. Simon believes that since the Taser Pulse will be a success, his
clothing line will be too. Up until this time, the production of the new product has been kept a
secret by Taser, and is only known to the company and Mr. Simon.
The Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6(a), Confidentiality of Information, states
that a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the
client gives informed consent. Rule 1.9(c), Duties to Former Clients, states that a lawyer who has
formerly represented a client in a matter shall not (1) use information relating to the
representation to the disadvantage of the former client or (2) reveal information relating to the
representation of a former client.
In this case, when Mr. Simon designed and patented a clothing line that had a built-in
holster, he revealed information to the representation of the Taser Company, thus, breaching his
duty of confidentiality. Not only was information from the representation revealed by designing
the clothing line, but Mr. Simon also had no informed consent from the Taser Company. The new
Taser Pulse had been kept a secret from the public and by Mr. Simon designing a clothing

Ashley Walker
Assignment 3
line tailored to the Taser Pulse with his knowledge of the product, it revealed information to the
representation of the Taser Company. Mr. Simon also has a duty to his former clients and since
Mr. Simon represented the Taser Company two years ago, he has specific obligations to them.
Mr. Simon shall not use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of his
former client. Mr. Simon designing a clothing line that has a built-in holster is seen as a
disadvantage to the Taser Company because the Taser Company can now never design and patent
their own clothing line for the product they designed themselves. The clothing line designed by
Mr. Simon is in no way an advantage to the Taser Company. Mr. Simon explicitly designed the
clothing line for his own personal success by weighing the success of his former clients product,
thus, creating a disadvantage to the Taser Company. Mr. Simon shall also not reveal information
relating to the representation of his former client. Again, by making his own clothing line for a
product designed by his former client would be revealing information about the representation of
the Taser Company.
Therefore, Mr. Simon did violate his duty of confidentiality 1.6(a) and his duty to his
former clients 1.9(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.