“How did you learn the truth?”

“She told me. The moment she got in my car at Valhalla.”

“What was your response?”

“I told her that I understood she had a duty of confidentiality, and that we had a duty, too, and would do everything the rules require. And even before her first day of work, we had a Chinese wall in place. The ethical screen the rules require.”

He’d hired a professional, an expert in legal ethics, to set up the ethical screen. An office-wide edict went out that no one in the firm have any communications with Ms. Lambert about CDMI or the Palmer case. All the firm’s electronic files relating to CDMI or the Palmer case were password-protected, and all the physical files were locked so that Ms. Lambert could not access them. She brought no such files with her, so there was no risk in that regard. And she was assigned an office far removed from anyone working on the Palmer case, so there was not even a risk of casual eavesdropping.

On cross-examination Harrington scored a minor point regarding the relatively small size of Ivins’s firm, in terms of both personnel and physical space. Ivins also admitted to a great degree of collegiality and extra-office socializing among himself and his employees. But he refused to admit that any of those circumstances might lead to a breach in the firm’s Chinese wall.

“Mr. Ivins, please tell the court exactly what prompted you to hire Ms. Lambert.”

“I’m always on the lookout for talented young lawyers. I plan to fully exploit her talents.”

“But was that your only motivation? Didn’t her previous employment at CDMI factor into your hiring decision in any way?”

Ivins turned a disarming look up at the judge. “I have to admit that it did. You see, I believe that Ms. Lambert has been falsely accused. And I want to do everything I can to help her in her quest for exoneration.”

Barrett’s stomach pitched at the look on the judge’s face. She was buying it, everything Ivins was shoveling at her.

The final witness was the outside ethics expert hired by Ivins to set up the Chinese wall. He testified that he was a member of the New York State Bar; that he served for many years on both the Bar’s Committee on Professional Ethics and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee; and that he designed, implemented, and monitored the ethical screen put in place between Shay Lambert and all personnel working on the CDMI matter at Mark Ivins & Associates. It was his opinion that the Ivins ethical screen met and exceeded all requirements and assured the protection of CDMI’s privileged information.

Harrington cross-examined him about the fees he charged, but it was a waste of time. There was no jury, and the judge’s conscience was beyond being shocked by astronomical expert fees.

That concluded the evidentiary portion of the hearing. The judge heard brief legal arguments from Harrington and Ivins, then issued her foregone conclusion from the bench: the motion to disqualify Mark Ivins & Associates as class counsel in the Palmer litigation was denied.