…Without [an opinion allowing commissioners to have partners who represent respondents in Grievance Commission proceedings,] I will not only suffer resignations by those currently serving, I will also predict that the Supreme Court will have a harder and harder time to find volunteer lawyers to serve on these panels. Respondents should generally have a right to select the attorney they would like to represent them. I hate to have a Supreme Court appointment of one partner make another partner decline the opportunity to represent a respondent. Likewise, if a partner in a good firm represents respondents, I hate to disqualify the entire … firm, which may have some very good volunteer lawyers in it, from being able to serve on the Grievance Commission. Until the rule has changed, large firms will suffer a penalty. The Board, too, believes that partners of Commissioners can be distinguished from partners of Board members in applying Rule 35.2(2) to imputed disqualification situations. In general, confidentiality and loyalty are central to conflict of interest concerns. See, e. g., Iowa Sup. Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Walters, 603 N.W.2d 772, 777-78 (Iowa 1999). These concerns clearly are substantial when a partner of a Board member wishes to represent the respondent in a Grievance Commission action. In this situation, the respondent’s would-be lawyer practices in the same firm as one who is privy to the Board’s confidential proceedings and who participated in the decision to file the Board’s complaint with the Commission. Representation by a partner of a Grievance Commission member (when that member is not assigned to the particular case) raises no such concerns. In that case, the partner of would-be counsel has no information that a complaint has even been filed against the respondent, let alone knowledge of the pleadings and charges. It is difficult to see how the a lawyer’s representation of a respondent in a particular Grievance Commission case creates concerns of loyalty or confidentiality merely because the lawyer has a partner who may serve in other, unrelated Grievance Commission cases. The Board notes that Rule 35.2(2) contains an analogous distinction between the ability of Board members and Commissioners “to represent any lawyer in any malpractice, criminal, or other matter where it appears that the filing of an ethical complaint against that lawyer is reasonably likely.” All Board members are precluded from handling a “malpractice, criminal, or other matter” that may give rise to an ethical complaint A Commissioner, however, may represent a lawyer in such other, related matters, but must then decline to participate in any Commission proceedings arising from the same. The basis for the distinction appears to be that Board members—unlike Commissioners—necessarily are privy to information and are involved in decisions regarding an ethical complaint that arises from a related malpractice or criminal case. Commissioners have no participation in or knowledge of a specific disciplinary case unless they are assigned to hear it. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Board that a lawyer may represent the respondent in a Grievance Commission case, despite having a fellow law firm member who serves on the Commission, so long as the law firm member in question is not appointed to serve as a panel member or alternate in that particular case.