What is the consequence for a lawyer who has personally and substantially participated as a judge?

When a lawyer has personally and substantially participated in a matter as a judge, the ethical rule reflects the importance of maintaining impartiality and avoiding conflicts of interest. In this scenario, obtaining informed consent from all parties involved is crucial. This requirement ensures that all parties are fully aware of the potential conflict arising from the lawyer's previous role as a judge, and that they voluntarily agree to continue with the lawyer's representation.

This provision in the rules aims to protect the integrity of the judicial process and uphold public confidence in the legal system. By requiring informed consent, it addresses concerns about bias or the appearance of bias, helping to ensure that the lawyer does not leverage privileged information gained during their time as a judge.

In contrast, the other options do not align with the ethical standards set forth in the Model Rules. For instance, representing anyone with no restrictions blatantly disregards the need to avoid conflicts of interest. Proceeding without consent solely based on a feeling of competence ignores the ethical obligations that prioritize the interests of the parties involved over personal judgment. Similarly, the notion that the lawyer can only represent other judges is overly restrictive and does not accurately reflect the ethical considerations at play.

Thus, the requirement for informed consent safeguards the legal profession's standards of conduct