In terms of imputed disqualification, which situation permits a lawyer to continue representation?

In the context of imputed disqualifications, a lawyer is generally allowed to continue representation when the conflict arises from a personal interest rather than a professional one tied to a specific case or a former client. Personal interests might include a variety of situations that do not create a direct conflict with the interests of current clients or the duties owed to them.

When a conflict originates from a personal interest of a lawyer, it does not automatically disqualify other lawyers in the same firm from representing the client, provided that the conflict does not adversely affect the representation of clients or violate legal ethical standards. Essentially, as long as the personal interest does not compromise the lawyer's ability to represent clients faithfully, they may continue their involvement in a case, maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

In contrast, other options often imply relational or professional conflicts that typically lead to disqualification. The idea of party consent does not eliminate conflicts that are fundamentally problematic from an ethical standpoint. Similarly, larger firms do not gain immunity from conflicts simply due to their size, and the presence of multiple lawyers does not inherently justify continued representation if it could compromise ethical duties to clients.