Courts will often examine two factors about the to-be-disqualified lawyer’s client: (1) the knowledge of the client (primarily whether the client knew in advance about the lawyer’s conflict of interest or other disqualifying conduct); and (2) the prejudice that disqualification might inflict on the client.  The second factor is generally more impactful.  Courts typically appreciate that clients might have invested significant money and trust into their lawyers, and those lawyers might have gained hard-to-replace knowledge about the facts and law.  As a consequence, if the courts disqualify such trusted or knowledgeable counsel, their (now former) clients will be forced to spend more time and money to get successor counsel to that same level.  Furthermore, courts are often deferential to (but not necessarily petrified by) civil clients’ “right” and criminal defendants’ constitutional right to counsel of choice.  Of course, although these client-centered factors are important, courts will still disqualify such lawyers if the other factors call for it (else disqualification motions would rarely, if ever, be granted).