What is the current state of the law on lateral transfers of lawyers?

No doubts were cast, however, on the integrity of the justice system as the overriding standard against which such questions should ultimately be resolved. With the appearance of justice being paramount, it is conceivable that circumstances may be present giving rise to that concern, despite strict measures having been taken to foreclose the possibility of even inadvertent divulgence of confidential information known to the lawyer making the lateral transfer. In this regard, it needs be underscored once more that Martin v. Gray does not hinge rebuttal of disqualifying conflict in lateral movements of lawyers upon the erection of Chinese Walls and cones of silence. As already pointed out, the majority in that case appears to suggest the need to be alert to the efficacity of such devices. Moreover, Sopinka J. did unequivocally state that the question of disqualifying conflicts of interest must be resolved in the context of the integrity of the justice system, whilst having due regard to values of a party’s right to the lawyer of choice and the mobility of lawyers. It is the concern for the appearance of the system’s integrity within that context which lies at the kernel of the law’s application in this case.