Link to US v. FLPA below. It's a significant case. Excerpts:
This appeal reflects the tension between an attorney’s ethical duty of confidentiality and the federal interest in encouraging “whistleblowers” to disclose unlawful conduct harmful to the government. We consider two questions: (1) whether the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert P. Patterson, Judge) correctly held that a former general counsel to defendant violated his ethical obligations under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (“N.Y. Rules”) by participating in this qui tam action; and, if so, (2) whether the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint and disqualifying plaintiff, all of its general partners including the former general counsel, and its outside counsel from bringing any subsequent qui tam action based on similar facts.
First, we agree that the attorney in question, through his conduct in this qui tam action, violated N.Y. Rule 1.9(c) which, in relevant part, prohibits lawyers from “us[ing] confidential information of [a] former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client,” N.Y. Rule 1.9(c), except “to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary . . . to prevent the client from committing a crime,” id. 1.6(b)(2).
Second, we hold that the District Court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its general partners, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts.