Q1 You are a paralegal experienced in the area professional responsibility. You work at a law office in, Massachusetts. Recently, you have been contacted by an attorney, Shawn Nagah, who has an ethical problem. Upon graduation from law school in 2009, Nagah took a job with the law firm of Rake and Inn (R&I) in the western part of Massachusetts. R&I currently has 20 attorneys. Approximately three months ago, Nagah left the firm and took a new job with the law office of Kenwee, Suim and Howe (KSH) in Boston. KSH employs over 200 attorneys, and Nagah has been assigned to the firm's estate department. For the past two years, R&I has been handling a products liability case against BigTime Company. The plaintiff in the action is a consumer who alleges that she suffered severe burns as a result of a defect in one of BigTime's flat hair irons. KSH is defending BigTime in the lawsuit and has been involved in the case since it was originally filed. When Nagah was interviewed by KSH for his current position with the firm, he was asked whether he had worked in any manner or in any capacity whatsoever on the BigTime case. Nagah truthfully answered no. His work for R&I was limited to the estate area. Nagah was then asked whether he had attended any staff meetings at R&I, formal or informal, at which time the BigTime case was discussed. Again, Nagah answered no. Nagah was hired and, up to recently, was doing well at KSH. Approximately one week ago, KSH received a motion from R&I to disqualify KSH from the BigTime case. The basis of the motion is that Nagah was working for R&I while the firm was handling the claim against BigTime. KSH attorneys are opposing the motion and have prepared an affidavit for Nagah to sign. The affidavit states, in part, that: 1) while with R&I, Nagah did not work on the BigTime case, 2) in addition, while working for R&I, Nagah acquired no knowledge and/or confidential information relating to the BigTime case, and 3) the motion to disqualify, therefore, is frivolous. Nagah confides in you, however, that there is a problem. When Nagah was at R&I, his good friend and former law school classmate, Attorney Willie Slick, was substantially involved in the BigTime litigation. Slick, as Nagah affectionately called him, was assigned to the case by the firm. He has entered his formal appearance with the Court. As friends and colleagues, Nagah and Slick spent a great deal of time together outside of the office. In fact, when Nagah and Slick both began working for the firm, the two shared an apartment. Unfortunately, Slick talked nonstop about the BigTime case. Nagah knows all about the BigTime case, albeit his information has been obtained on a purely informal basis from his friend, Slick. Nagah has called Slick, and Slick is "pretty sure" that no one else knows about these conversations. Slick has confided in Nagah that the motion to disqualify is just another tactical maneuver in the case on the part of R&I. Nagah's plan is to sign the affidavit as drafted. Based upon the affidavit, he anticipates that the motion to disqualify KSH will be denied, and Slick and Nagah will have no further communications about the case. Nagah tells you that he will not share any of the information that he has about the BigTime case with members of his current firm. Neither the plaintiff, therefore, nor the defendant will be harmed. And Nagah will be able to keep his job. Nagah wants your firm's opinion about all of this and the attorney has asked you to draft an opinion for her review citing the rules, relevant cases, comments etc for her consideration. In the draft the attorney has asked you to address how you think the attorney should advise him? Based upon your research, what do you think is a likely outcome regarding the motion to disqualify KSH.