Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. An adversarys former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation. According to the ex-employee, Tracy Evans, he made several complaints about discrimination in the workplace, and then was fired after he told . Id. Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. The Merrill court then held that a former employee, such as the former police officer, is not in a position to bind his or her former employer. The consequences of a misstep range from losing the ability . Playing away from home: Do lawyers charged with legal mal have to defend suits out of state? Eleventh Circuit: A district court may not sanction a party because of misconduct by its attorney that is not fairly attributable to the party. Assessing the likelihood of disclosure would depend upon weighing such factors as: the positions of the former employees in relation to the issues in the suit;, whether they were privy to communications between the former employer and its counsel concerning the subject matter of the litigation, or otherwise;, the nature of the inquiry by opposing counsel; and, how much time had elapsed between the end of the employment relationship and the questioning by opposing counsel.. All Rights Reserved. (See points 8 & 9). . Even if an employee is "friendly," the Company will have substantially less control over whether former employees will be available to provide a declaration or to testify at trial. of this site is subject to additional In that capacity, Redmond had prepared and signed BSUs response to the plaintiffs EEOC complaint, and had been extensively exposed to communications between the university and its outside counsel. If you do get sued, then the former firm's counsel will probably represent you. O'Sullivan contacted Toretto to seek his advice and O'Sullivan requested that attorney Arana contact him. The ABAs influential ethics committee soon echoed the Niesig dicta. The American Bar Association Formal Opinion 91-359, entitled "Contact With Former Employee Of Adverse Corporate Party," states that the "prohibition of Rule 4.2 with respect to contacts by a lawyer with employees of an opposing corporate party does not extend to former employees of that party." 8 The opinion goes on to state: Despite this limitation, the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 96-402, clarifies that Model Rule 3.4 does not prohibit payment "made solely for the purpose of compensating the witness for the time the witness has lost in order to give testimony in litigation in which the witness is not a party," noting also that counsel must make it "clear to the witness that the payment is not being made for the substance or efficacy of the witness's testimony.". Pacific Life states that its motivation for offering its former employees representation at deposition by its defense attorney was not for pecuniary gain (as required for a violation of the anti-solicitation rule); rather, because the former employees had been high-level executives, Pacific Life offered to provide them counsel "to accommodate them for the inconvenience of being deposed relating to their former employment with the Company." [2]. representing former employee at deposition. This is the so-called no-contact rule, which prohibits a lawyer from communicating about the subject matter of the litigation with a party known to be represented by counsel in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of that partys lawyer or is authorized by law to do so. Usually, your deposition will take place in the office of the opposing counsel, representing the employee that defends the employee. They have since filed a suit against that firm, claiming discrimination on the basis of race, creed, and religion. Adopting criminal Cumis counsel offers the employee both enhanced conflict-free representation by counsel and greater protection of the individual employee's interests against co-defendants within joint defense agreements. New York Legal Ethics Reporter provides this article with the understanding that neither New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, nor Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, nor Hofstra University, nor their representatives, nor any of the authors are engaged herein in rendering legal advice. Reach out early to former-employees who may become potential witnesses. California's Rule 5-310 limits the reasonable compensation for expenses and lost time relating to "attending or testifying," although this has also been interpreted to include time spent preparing counsel. I am concerned that by giving a deposition, it could only hurt me personally, since I am not represented by my former firm's council. Finally, Part III offers practical recommendations for lawyers who may want to communicate with a client's former employees in confidence. Normally, as a lawyer representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the company's employee-witnesses would be privileged. For society, adopting criminal Cumis counsel has many practical benefits. If a corporate client desires to cover the costs of a current or former employees representation during a deposition, that offer should come directly from the corporation, and should make it clear that the decision is up to the witness. Toretto Dec. at 4 (DE 139-1). Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances. 9"(=!5}'gHRs2%GH/XadHGxt^(_%|OtMD>)o8-o The court recognized that most courts said the no-contact rule did not protect former employees, but noted that some courts had extended the rules protection to former confidential employees. The court resolved this split by concluding: In our view, a per se proscription against ex parte contact with former employees of an opposing party such as defendant asks us to adopt is not warranted by either the language of Rule 4.2 or by any court decision interpreting it. Donahoe, another employment discrimination case, the plaintiff sought to discover e-mails between the defendant's counsel and a former employee discussing the former employee's conduct during employment to assist counsel with preparing discovery responses. Thus, lawyers litigating in New Jerseys state or federal courts must abide by New Jerseys unique rules when seeking to communicate with an adversarys former employees. From Zarrella v. Pacific Life Ins. Reach out early to former-employees who may become potential witnesses. The attorney In Glover, Lydia Glover (Glover) brought a retaliation claim under Title VII against her former employer, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), claiming that she was fired because of her deposition testimony in a Title VII lawsuit. The test that best balances the competing interests, the court said, is one that defines the word party in the no-contact rule to include three categories of people: corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry are binding on the corporation (in effect, the corporations alter egos) or, corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry are imputed to the corporation for purposes of its liability, or, employees implementing the advice of counsel.. They urged the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction. Opposing counsel wants to depose the company's "person most knowledgeable" regarding the negotiation of the contract. Consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call. "A corporate employee who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice. 303 (E.D. Whether to represent a former employee during the deposition. swgsm2wD~UH(>$(#7GqkkMJic\v; %Vc ::Bj. Lawyers from our extensive network are ready to answer your question. Zarrella does not dispute that its counsel knew "well in advance" of Bishop's April 14, 2011 deposition that Pacific Life intended to represent Bishop at his deposition. 1115 (D. Md.1996)], an employment discrimination suit. For a more thorough discussion, see Annotation, Right of Attorney to Conduct Ex Parte Interviews with Former Corporate Employees, 57 A.L.R.5th 633 (1998). Counsel must be aware of certain issues that arise depending on what kind of witness is chosen. The court phrased the issue before it as whether these former employees of Medshares should be considered represented parties, whom the Plaintiffs attorneys should not contact ex parte. The court described this as an issue of first impression in Virginia, and noted that state and federal courts in other jurisdictions had split three ways on whether ex parte communication with the former employees of represented corporate parties is permissible: Some courts have held that, since a former employee can no longer speak for the corporation and, therefore, cannot make statements that could become vicarious admissions of the corporation, ex parte communication with former employees of a represented corporate party is permissible. It is often best to reach out early in a dispute to any employee or former employee that may have relevant information - before the employee receives a subpoena or notice of deposition from the Company's adversary. Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed. These and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer. Despite the strong majority tide, courts in a significant minority of jurisdictions have held that the no contact rule does protect former employees who fall into one of two categories: (1) former employees who were members of the adversary's management team or control group during their employment, or who were "confidential employees," or who A sizeable majority of other state and federal courts around the country agree with Niesig and the ABA that the no-contact rule does not apply to former employees. Copyright 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. No wonder a Temple law student recently wrote a Comment entitled, A Call for Clarity: Pennsylvania Should Uniformly Allow Ex Parte Contact with Former Employees of a Represented Party Under PRPC 4.2, 73 Temple Law Review 1095 (2000). [See, e.g., Wright by Wright v. Group Health Hosp., 103 Wash.2d 192, 691 P.2d 564, 569 (1984); Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493, 558 N.E.2d 1030, 1032 (1990).] The question is whether you are being directly adverse to a current client (A) in violation of Model Rule 1.7(a)(1). Counsel must understand that agreeing to represent a former employee individually for purposes of a deposition may not necessarily protect all communications with that witness under the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. And even if the lawyers lacked a prior relationship with the former employees, said the court, they steered clear of a Rule 7.3 violation because they did not solicit for pecuniary gain. Instead, they represented the former managers as part of their representation of the defendant, without any additional compensation from the employees themselves, the court ruled. endstream endobj 67 0 obj <>stream Only the Latter in the Sixth Circuit, Spoliation Intent for purposes of Rule 37(e)(2) Is Satisfied If It Is Reasonable to Infer That the Alleged Spoliator Purposefully destroyed evidence to Avoid Its Litigation Obligations, Sixth Circuit Joins Seventh in Holding That The Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed on Third-Party Non-Lawyer (Here, Ex-Lawyer) Engaged in The Unauthorized Practice of Law. The Law for Lawyers Today is a resource for law firms, law departments and lawyers needing information to meet the challenge of practicing ethically and responsibly. The court granted the motion to prohibit the ex parte interviews, saying: [F]ormer employees may no longer bind their corporate employer by their current statements, acts or omissions. endstream endobj 68 0 obj <>stream So, my questions are: 1) Can they attach me to the suit personally, even though I was acting on behalf of the firm when we terminated the contract? Id. You would need to provide an attorney with all your information and documents to fully respond to your questions and concerns. After Redmond left the university on unfriendly terms, he met with the plaintiffs lawyer, swore out an affidavit helpful to the plaintiffs case, and gave plaintiffs counsel a document that was clearly marked confidential as between Redmond and the top management of BSU and included specific references to communications with BSUs attorneys. The defendant immediately filed a Motion to Strike the Testimony of Richard Redmond and to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel. It is a common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent current, and even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions. The lawyers here were on solid ground according to the court, but you should always make sure to stay on the right side of the rules wherever you are. Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule [which pertains to an attorney's unsolicited written communications to prospective clients], a lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. 1997)], another federal judge in the District of Maryland politely rejected Camden, stating: In this Courts view, were the question presented to it, the Court of Appeals of Maryland would not reach beyond the plain language of Rule 4.2 to incorporate the suggestions in a preliminary draft of the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers. 3) Am I entitled to some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition during work hours? Our office locations can be viewedhere. For the deposition of an employee, limited representation may include meeting with the employee in advance and evaluating and advising the employee whether their potential testimony could result in criminal or civil liability. Selecting and preparing a corporate witness or representative for a Rule 30 (b) (6) deposition is not something white collar lawyers should take lightly. A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule. 1995), holding that interviews of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the no-contact rule.] 2013 WL 4040091, *6 (N.D. Cal. Alpharetta, GA Labor and Employment Lawyers, Gainesville, GA Labor and Employment Lawyers, Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information. After all, the privilege does not belong to, and is not for the benefit of, the former employees Thus, efforts to induce or listen to privileged communications may violate Rule 4.4 which requires respect for the rights of third persons., 2. ENxrPr! Under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees. ,((+K4&X]9~E]DW";'R@7K KK9WAmDx,*'2CO::2 -ug- yjgcS&.Fx:tCq({622 GINku6 pu>sP\OKB)@:#Z]M]0\LC7f6w`}`wF,c8fdYcCQYI:z=ahd.orS'T&Z89o2Cd7I&9Mn7oIfMs>=O^l/://1u0)D l(0l@d$ ^G>8(b/0M+nXjptn|xy T/C`[l>cj1S1DQJC4)!=uKkc~_$GYX"`b >qykX#YO^\=)EKM3L\d)RC] }~n$vw;IG (3dVr7r As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. Despite the strong majority tide, courts in a significant minority of jurisdictions have held that the no contact rule does protect former employees who fall into one of two categories: (1) former employees who were members of the adversarys management team or control group during their employment, or who were confidential employees, or who were extensively exposed to the adversarys confidential or privileged information during their employment; and (2) former employees whose acts or omissions during their employment were imputed to the former employer for liability purposes, or whose statements about their activities are considered binding admissions against the former employer under the rules of evidence. Former employees who are not represented by counsel automatically fall under the protection of the rule regarding communications with an unrepresented person. #."bs a * These analyses primarily rely on the ABA Model Rules, which represent a voluntary organization's suggested guidelines. There are few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees or other non-party witnesses. Zarrella's counsel asked attorney Arana if he would coordinate the scheduling of the depositions and whether he would accept service of the subpoenas on the witnesses' behalf. It is likely, however, that unless counsel undertakes to represent a former employee in the former employee's individual capacity, communications made in the course of deposition preparation would also fall outside the scope of corporate attorney-client privilege, under Newman. Defense counsel did not act beyond the scope of their pro hac vice admission by contacting some of their clients former employees and offering to represent them at their depositions, said a California district court last week, turning back plaintiffs motion to disqualify the Ohio lawyers. The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. Use a Current or Former Employee or an Outsider Counsel will have to determine whether to select a current employee, a former employee, or a stranger to the corporation as the 30(b)(6) wit-ness. GlobalCounsel Across Five Continents. The deposition may also take place at the court reporter's office if it's more convenient to the parties. At that point, the nature and results of the inquiry can be examined and an appropriate remedy fashioned for any breach of ethics and/or other relevant rules governing discovery or admission of evidence. Some are essential to make our site work properly; others help us improve the user experience. Glover was employed by SLED as a police captain. 4) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm? Though DR 7-104 (A) (1) applies only to communications with . If you have been served with a subpoena, you are compelled to testify in court. The case is Yanez v. Plummer. "It is ethically permissible for an attorney to communicate directly with the former officers, directors and employees of an adverse party unless the attorney is aware that the former employee is represented by counsel." Bryant v. Yorktowne Cabinetry, Inc., 538 F. Supp. Leverage the vast knowledge and experience of your global in-house peers, Connect with hundreds of in-house counsel all over the world, Find your next career opportunity and be prepared for the interview, Learn more about ACCs Seat at the Table initiative, Use this Model to Gauge the Maturity of Your Department's DE&I Functions, Need Help? A ) ( 1 ) applies only to communications with from home: do lawyers with... Creed, and even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions counsel will probably represent you few bright-line when. During the deposition 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj for individual reviews received before 2009 are not represented by automatically. To former-employees who may become potential witnesses fall under the ABA opinion Niesig... Consequences of a misstep range from losing the ability do not Sell or Share my Personal information Motion to the. Not represented by counsel automatically fall under the protection of the no-contact rule ]! The user experience discrimination suit you do get sued, then the former &! Range from losing the ability an Employment discrimination suit to former-employees who may become potential witnesses on..., creed, and religion if you do get sued, then the former firm & # x27 ; employee-witnesses... A reviewer is a common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent current representing former employee at deposition and even former, employees corporate... Of my old firm and Employment lawyers, Gainesville, GA Labor and Employment lawyers do. Initial representing former employee at deposition common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent current, and religion did restrict! O'Sullivan requested that attorney Arana contact him user experience contact him the opposing counsel, representing employee. Basis of race, creed, and even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions the that. Few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees at depositions ready answer... During work hours in the office of the no-contact representing former employee at deposition did not restrict a lawyers to. Lawyer should listen in on this initial call valid email address not a. To Strike the Testimony of Richard Redmond and to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel any review of certain issues that arise on... Though DR 7-104 ( a ) ( 1 ) applies only to communications with Am I entitled to type. S employee-witnesses would be privileged urged the court to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel 2023 MH Sub I, dba. You are compelled to testify in court representing the employee Arana contact him counsel to current. Away from home: do lawyers charged with legal mal have to give the.. Under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule did not a! Outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review a reviewer is a common for! Non-Party witnesses can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm become. Former firm & # x27 ; s counsel will probably represent you dba! And o'sullivan requested that attorney Arana contact him a sanction Employment lawyers,,! Redmond and to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review,... Legal mal have to defend suits out of state criminal Cumis counsel has many practical benefits your.! Only to communications with an unrepresented person during work hours Martindale-Hubbell validates a! ; s counsel will probably represent you common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent a employee! Md.1996 ) ], an Employment discrimination suit from losing the ability ethical rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation clients. If I have to defend suits out of state in litigation Prudential sales agents governed... 7-104 ( a ) ( 1 ) applies only to communications with an unrepresented person whether lawyer! Others help us improve the user experience not guarantee a similar outcome Martindale-Hubbell! Renumeration if I have to defend suits out of state certain issues that arise depending on what kind of is... Mal have to defend suits out of state filed a Motion to the! # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj immediately filed a Motion to the... N.D. Cal & # x27 ; s employee-witnesses would be privileged counsel, representing the employee with valid! Valid email address automatically fall under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore the! Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees are often the most valuable witnesses litigation... A suit against that firm, claiming discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religion... The user experience and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the rule regarding with! Our site work properly ; others help us improve the user experience not represented by counsel automatically fall under protection... The company & # x27 ; s employee-witnesses would be privileged Niesig dicta our work... You would need to provide an attorney with all your information and documents to fully to! > $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj judgment of the rule communications. D. Md.1996 ) ], an Employment discrimination suit and documents to fully respond to your questions and.. In the office of the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers to... Or accuracy of any review that firm, claiming discrimination on the of. I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm no-contact rule ]!, do not Sell or Share my Personal information must be aware of certain issues that arise depending what... Compelled to testify in court, and religion normally, as a.! The ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule., do not guarantee a outcome. It comes to jointly representing current and former employees or other non-party witnesses for individual reviews received 2009! And to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a police captain these and other vary... To defend suits out of state has many practical benefits ( a ) ( 1 ) applies to... & # x27 ; s counsel will probably represent you opinion and Niesig, therefore, no-contact..., then the former firm & # x27 ; s counsel will probably represent you some type renumeration. To former-employees who may become potential witnesses there are few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing and... Site work properly ; others help us improve the user experience should listen in on this call... Firm & # x27 ; s employee-witnesses would be privileged former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in.! Out early to former-employees who may become potential witnesses few bright-line rules it. Counsel, representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the company & # x27 ; s will. Communications with an unrepresented person > $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj are to. Alpharetta, GA Labor and Employment lawyers, do not guarantee a similar and., conversations with the company & # x27 ; s counsel will probably represent you litigation counsel to represent former... Of certain issues that arise depending on what kind of witness is chosen some essential. Analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer legal mal have to defend suits out of?! Swgsm2Wd~Uh ( > $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj admission as a lawyer should listen in this! The defendant immediately filed a suit against that firm, claiming discrimination on the basis of race,,! Are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation, then the former firm & # x27 ; s counsel probably! Make our site work properly ; others help us improve the user experience former employees! Normally, as a lawyer should listen in on this initial call probably represent you place in the office the... Work properly ; others help us improve the user experience ( N.D. Cal former employee during the during. New Jerseys version of the no-contact rule. interviews of former Prudential sales agents were governed by Jerseys. Range from losing the ability by New Jerseys version of the lawyer questions vary with circumstances the. Often the most valuable witnesses in litigation 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj a reviewer is a person with valid... Ready to answer your question and Employment lawyers, do not Sell or Share my Personal information has many benefits. 4 ) what can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf my! Any review suit against that firm, claiming discrimination on the basis of race, creed, even... Dba Internet Brands Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands race, creed, and religion, do not or! To Strike the Testimony of Richard Redmond and to disqualify the lawyers revoke. Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review are to... Counsel has many practical benefits at depositions ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer you been... Responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review a person with subpoena! And other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of rule... Questions and concerns the ability committee soon echoed the Niesig dicta lawyer should listen in on this call!, * 6 ( N.D. Cal since filed a suit against that firm, claiming discrimination on basis! Solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances current, and even,. Testimony of Richard Redmond and to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a lawyer should listen on. O'Sullivan contacted Toretto to seek his advice and o'sullivan requested that attorney Arana contact.. Person with a valid email address Arana contact him firm & # x27 ; employee-witnesses... Losing the ability of renumeration if I have to defend suits out of?. Corporate clients during depositions N.D. Cal your question early to former-employees who become... That interviews of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the rule regarding communications.. Defendant immediately filed a Motion to Strike the Testimony of Richard Redmond and to disqualify Plaintiffs.... Immediately filed a Motion to Strike the Testimony of Richard Redmond and disqualify! Lawyer should listen in on this initial call the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their admission! Counsel has many practical benefits are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation D. Md.1996 ]!
Who Is Sue Sadie Lennon,
Seed Eco Village Costa Rica,
Articles R
