Source: http://docplayer.net/850449-Contacting-employees-of-an-adverse-corporate-party-a-plaintiff-s-attorney-s-view.html
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 18:34:51
Document Index: 678079787

Matched Legal Cases: ['arty 355', 'arty 7', 'arty 357', 'arty 361', 'ART 1', 'ART 1']

⭐Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party: A Plaintiff s Attorney s View
Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party: A Plaintiff s Attorney s View
Download "Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party: A Plaintiff s Attorney s View"
1 353 Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party: A Plaintiff s Attorney s View Ellen J. Messing and James S. Weliky* The Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and their predecessor Disciplinary Rules, include prohibitions on direct ex parte contact between lawyers and those represented by other lawyers in the matter. 1 The text of Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 reads: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order. 2 A feature of these rules that has proven enormously controversial over the years, and one with great practical impact on plaintiffs employment lawyers, is the extent to which the rule prohibits ex parte contact between lawyers for individual employee plaintiffs, on the one hand, and on the other hand, potential witnesses employed by corporations or other organizations that are in a posture adverse to those plaintiffs. Plaintiffs lawyers naturally seek the broadest possible access to such witnesses, while management-side lawyers ordinarily seek to limit access absent their express consent. Over the years, this issue has spawned an extraordinary amount of litigation with widely disparate results in various jurisdictions. This article analyzes the existing jurisprudence on point as it relates to current employee-witnesses and former employees in both the private and public sectors, focusing only on civil litigation. 3 It is *Ms. Messing and Mr. Weliky are partners in Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky, P.C., located in Boston, Massachusetts. The authors firm was involved in certain litigation described in the article. The authors wish to thank attorney Lisa Bernt for her invaluable research assistance on this article. They also express their gratitude to Professors John Leubsdorf and Paul Tremblay for their insights and helpful editorial comments. A different version of this article appeared as a chapter in REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS IN TITLE VII ACTIONS (Aspen Publishers 2001). 1. See MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT R. 4.2 (2004); cf. MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT DR The term or court order was added to the existing text of Rule 4.2 by the American Bar Association as part of a set of 2002 amendments to the Model Rules, available at See discussion infra. In all other respects, the text of the Rule was unchanged. 3. This article does not address the question of whether Rule 4.2 applies to communications made by or at the behest of government attorneys in the course of criminal2 THE LABOR LAWYER 353 (2004) written from the perspective of a lawyer for an employee seeking maximum access to prospective witnesses. The law affecting each category of witness is summarized by grouping jurisdictions according to the general category (permissive, restrictive, or intermediate) into which they fall. The article then evaluates the various approaches and proposes an analytical framework for considering the issues raised by this controversy. At the outset, it should be noted that Rule 4.2 precludes communication with a witness the lawyer knows to be represented. The Model Rules define knows as actual knowledge rather than reasonably knows or should know. 4 Thus, a lawyer should not be faulted (or worse, sanctioned) for interviewing employees not yet known to come within the ambit of the rule s prohibitions. The lawyer must, however, terminate the interview when the lawyer learns through inquiry or the witness s statements that the employee falls into a prohibited category. 5 I. The Ethical Constraints on Talking to Current Employees of Corporate Opposing Party A. Permissive View This view interprets ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2, and its predecessor, DR 7-104(A)(1) of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, as prohibiting opposing counsel from communicating only with employees in the corporation s control group i.e., the most senior corporate managers without the corporate attorney s consent. 6 This view holds that only the employees with the power to control the corporation may properly be equated with the corporation, investigations, a central and longstanding issue in discussions about the meaning and impact of the Rule. See COMMENTS FROM U.S. DEP T OFJUSTICE,PROFESSIONAL RESPON- SIBILITY ADVISORY OFFICE TO ETHICS 2000 COMMISSION (Mar. 13, 2001); see also Reporter s Explanation of [2002] Changes to Model Rules, available at cpr/e2k-rule42rem.html; MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT 4.2, cmt. 5 (2004). 4. MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT R. 1.0(f) Terminology (1995). 5. See ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op (1995) (no bar to communicating with represented person absent actual knowledge of representation); Gaylard v. Homemakers of Montgomery, Inc., 675 So. 2d 363, 367 (Ala. 1996) (no sanction where no litigation had commenced and no reason to believe that potential defendant had retained counsel). Note that knowledge is even harder to infer under the 2002 version of the Model Rules. In February 2002, Comment [8] to Model Rule 4.2 was amended to limit the circumstances in which actual knowledge may be presumed. The amendment deleted the sentence: Such an inference [of knowledge of representation] may arise in circumstances where there is substantial reason to believe that the person with whom communication is sought is represented in the matter to be discussed. MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT R. 4.2 cmt. 8 (2002), available at 6. N.J. R. PROF L CONDUCT 1.13(a), 4.2 (prohibits contacts with litigation control group, defined as those with significant involvement in determination of corporation s legal position); Alabama Opinion RO (Sept. 22, 1994), reprinted in NAT L REP. ON LEGAL ETHICS AND PROF L RESPONSIBILITY (1995) at 17 (lawyer representing client in both a gender and age discrimination case, where client is named as a witness by defen-3 Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party 355 based on the theory that any corporate action would not take place without their input, and thus only they are within the concept of a party 7 for purposes of the no-contact rule. 8 To avoid any risk of overreaching, an attorney contacting a witness who is outside of the control group is generally required to (1) identify him/herself; (2) inform the employee of the controversy at issue; and (3) inform the employee of the reason for the particular inquiry. 9 B. Intermediate Views 1. Model Rule 4.2 Comment [4] Test Until February 2002, when the ABA s House of Delegates approved changes to the Model Rule (discussed below), the official Comment [4] to ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 (1995) (in effect in many jurisdictions) stated: In the case of an organization, this Rule prohibits communications by a lawyer for another person or entity concerning the matter in representation with persons having a managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization, and with any other person whose act or omission in connection with that matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability or whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization. 10 dant corporation in age discrimination case, may talk to client about age discrimination action so long as client is not in defendant s control group); Johnson v. Cadillac Plastic Group, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1437, 1442 (D. Colo. 1996); Bey v. Village of Arlington Heights, 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1375 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 1989); Fair Automotive Repair, Inc. v. Car-X Service Systems, Inc., 471 N.E.2d 554, (Ill. Ct. App. 1984) (applying no-contact rule only to top management persons who had the responsibility of making final decisions ); Porter v. Arco Metals Co., 642 F. Supp (D. Mont. 1986); In re PMD Enterprises Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 519, (D.N.J.); Andrews v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 191 F.R.D. 59, (D.N.J. 2000); Apple Corps. Ltd. v. International Collectors Soc., 15 F. Supp. 2d 456, 473 (D.N.J. 1998) (applying litigation control group test); Bougé v. Smith s Mgmt. Corp., 132 F.R.D. 560, 567, (D. Utah 1990); Wright by Wright v. Group Health Hosp., 691 P.2d 564, (Wash. 1984) (collecting authorities). 7. In August 1995, the ABA amended Model Rule 4.2 to substitute the word person for party. 8. Fair Automotive Repair, Inc., 471 N.E.2d at See, e.g., Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Practices Litig., 911 F. Supp. 148, n.5 (D.N.J. 1995). 10. MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT R. 4.2 cmt. 4 (1995). Many jurisdictions have followed this approach (or a close variation). See, e.g., ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op (1995) (Rule 4.2 does not allow a lawyer representing a corporation to enforce a blanket prohibition against speaking with corporate employees); State Bar of Mich. Standing Comm. on Prof. Law & Ethics, Op. No. RI-120, 1992 WL (Mar. 6, 1992); Weibrecht v. So. Ill. Transfer, Inc., 241 F.3d 875, (7th Cir. 2001), amended, No , 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5642 (7th Cir. Mar. 27, 2001) (district court did not abuse its discretion in applying Model 4.2 comment test); In re Grievance Proceeding, No. 3:01GP6, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18417, at *9 10 (D. Conn., July 19, 2002) (holding that attorney did not violate Rule 4.2 by ex parte contact with in-house lawyer of organization with outside counsel); Hill v. Shell Oil Co., 209 F. Supp. 2d 876, (N.D. Ill. 2002); De La Fuente v. FPM Ipsen Heat Treating Inc., No. 02C50188, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24040, at *6 8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2002); Orlowski v. Dominick s Finer Foods, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 723 (E.D. Ill. 1996); Brown v. St. Joseph4 THE LABOR LAWYER 353 (2004) Under this view, an employee with the power to bind the corporation or make admissions, or whose acts or omissions can be imputed to the organization, is included in the definition of person. Attorneys and courts have struggled for many years with the admissions language. Despite many states adoption of the text of Comment [4], there has been no consensus as to its meaning. Courts have differed most notably on whether to interpret admissions as having the same meaning in the Comment as it does in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), i.e., as applying to most employees whenever they discuss matters within the scope of their employment. Such a view on the meaning of admissions has the effect of restricting sharply the universe of potential ex parte interviews. By contrast, the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers (Restatement) states emphatically that admissions in the Comment is not meant to import the meaning of that term from the hearsay rule, but rather is intended to refer only to the much narrower category of employees who may make incontrovertible binding admissions a somewhat archaic concept. 11 The former interpretation would be contrary to the policies of the Rule. 12 There have been other variations as well; for example, in Weeks v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. I-89, 13 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted Oklahoma s rule to prohibit ex parte interviews only with those employees who have speaking authority sufficient to bind the County, 148 F.R.D. 246, (N.D. Ind. 1993); Shoney s Inc. v. Lewis, 875 S.W.2d 514, (Ky. 1994); In re Bilbe, No B-1740, 2003 La. LEXIS 305, at *25 26 (La. Feb. 7, 2003); Woodard v. Nabors Offshore Corp., No , 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177 (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2001); Paulson v. Plaintfield Trucking, Inc., 210 F.R.D. 654 (D. Minn. 2002); Smith v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 87 S.W.3d 266 (Mo. App. 2002); McCallum v. CSX Transp., Inc., 149 F.R.D. 104, (M.D.N.C. 1993); Insituform of N. Am. v. Midwest Pipelines, 139 F.R.D. 622 (S.D. Ohio 1991); Univ. Patents v. Kligman, 737 F. Supp. 325, 328 (E.D. Pa. 1990); Midwest Motor Sports, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 2d 1147, (D.S.D. 2001). See also Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v. State, 261 Cal. Rptr. 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989); Chancellor v. Boeing, 678 F. Supp. 250, 253 (D. Kan. 1988); Massa v. Eaton Corp., 109 F.R.D. 312, , 39 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1211 (W.D. Mich. 1985) (same result interpreting DR 7-104(A)(1)); State ex rel. Pitts v. Roberts, 857 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. 1993) (adopting comment 4 test); Baisley v. Missisquoi Cemetery Assoc., 708 A.2d 924 (Vt. 1998) (rejecting blanket ban and permissive view, denying contact because employee would be source of party admission and low need for contact by plaintiff). National Labor Relations Board s Guidelines Concerning Appropriate Contacts with Represented Parties, OM (Feb. 15, 2002) (NLRB s attorneys must contact and obtain consent from organization s attorney before initiating contact with or interviewing a current supervisor or agent). Arizona and Iowa also currently have under consideration the adoption of variants of this approach. See Redlined Rule Changes htm (Arizona) and RulesIowaEthicsRulesDrafting.html (Iowa). 11. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS 100, cmt. e (2000). 12. Compare Orlowski, 937 F. Supp. at 730 (prohibition should be read narrowly to permit broad access to witnesses), with In re: Air Crash Disaster near Roselawn, 909 F. Supp. 1116, 1121 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (broad prohibition because virtually every employee may conceivably make admissions binding on his or her employer ) F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2000).5 Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party 357 corporation; however, in determining which employees speak for defendant, the court considered whether the individual s statement could be deemed an admission in the sense of an exclusion from the hearsay rule Changes to Model Rule 4.2 and Its Comments In February 2002, the ABA s House of Delegates adopted a series of changes to the existing Model Rules, largely responsive to proposals from a blue-ribbon panel known as the Ethics 2000 Commission. 15 These changes included revisions in Rule 4.2 and, notably, in its Comments, including Comment [4]. 16 These changes generally had the effect of clarifying the propriety of broad access of an adversary s attorneys to employee-witnesses. Much of the impetus behind the Comment [4] changes arose from the disarray in the existing body of case law, and particularly from the ABA s view that the admissions language in Comment [4] had been misinterpreted in the line of cases that had interpreted it broadly. 17 Thus, the ABA revised Comment [4] (now Comment [7]) to Rule 4.2 to prohibit communication only with a constituent of the organization who supervises, directs or regularly consults with the organization s lawyer concerning the matter or has authority to obligate the organization with respect to the matter or whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability. 18 The revised Comment pointedly deleted the existing language barring contact with persons whose statement may constitute an admission 14. Id. at The formal name of the Ethics 2000 Commission was the Commission on Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (Ethics 2000). 16. The 2002 vote revised the text of Model Rule 4.2 as described in note 2, supra. The House of Delegates also added a Comment (now Comment [6]) to Rule 4.2 that states: [a] lawyer who is uncertain whether a communication with a represented person is permissible may seek a court order. A lawyer may also seek a court order in exceptional circumstances to authorize a communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule, for example, where communication with a person represented by counsel is necessary to avoid reasonably certain injury. See MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT R. 4.2 cmt. 6 (2003). 17. See Ethics 2000 Commission Draft for Public Comment, Model Rule 4.2, Reporter s Explanation of Changes (Feb. 21, 2000) (hereinafter Reporter s Feb Explanation). 18. The term constituent was adopted as a substitute for the phrase agent or employee appearing in the earlier version of the model rule so as to expressly include members of an organization s governing board as well as employees. See Margaret Love, The Revised ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 15GEO. J.LEGAL ETHICS 441, (Spring 2001). The term is further defined in Model Rule 1.13 (Organization as Client), Comment [1] as: [o]fficers, directors, employees and shareholders or their positional equivalents. MODEL RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT R cmt. 1 (2003).6 THE LABOR LAWYER 353 (2004) on the part of the organization and made other limiting changes. The ABA Reporter s Observations noted: The current Comment s inclusion of all persons having a managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization has been criticized as vague and overly broad... In focusing on the constituent s authority in the matter at issue and relationship with the organization s lawyer, the Comment [now] provides clearer guidance than the broad general reference to managerial responsibility.... [T]he Commission deleted the broad and potentially openended reference to any other person... whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization. This reference has been read by some as prohibiting communication with any person whose testimony would be admissible against the organization as an exception to the hearsay rule. 19 As the Reporter to the Ethics 2000 Commission had explained earlier in the course of the Commission s deliberations, such a reading misinterpreted the original intent of the admissions language. The intent had never been to track the hearsay exclusion, but rather to preclude contact only with the far narrower set of employees authorized by some local evidence laws to make binding admissions against an organization. Conflating the hearsay exclusion with the ethical bar, as so many courts had done up until then, was described by the Reporter as creating confusion, and necessitated the remedy embodied in the Comment [7] rewrite. 20 Most jurisdictions are currently reviewing the ABA s 2002 changes to the Model Rules and Comments, and several have either adopted or proposed changes identical to or substantially the same as those in the new Comment [7] Available at 20. See Reporter s Feb Explanation, supra note E.g., North Carolina has adopted, effective March 1, 2003, changes to its Rule and Comments that reflect in large measure the 2002 Model Rule 4.2 as it pertains to ex parte contact with current employees. See The corresponding Comment to North Carolina s Rule similarly deleted the restrictive language that would have prohibited contact with persons whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization. Id. at cmt. 9. North Carolina s Comment [9] adds that ex parte communications are also prohibited with any constituent of the organization, regardless of position or level of authority, who is participating or participated substantially in the legal representation of the organization in a particular matter. Id. Delaware s Permanent Advisory Committee on the Delaware Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct has issued a preliminary report that proposes a rule tracking the new Model Rule 4.2 and its Comments. Available at dlrpc.htm. Louisiana s Supreme Court is considering an amendment to that state s Rule that essentially tracks the language of the new Model Rule 4.2. The language of the new Comment [7] of the Model Rule is included right in the text of Louisiana s proposed rule. Available at South Carolina s House of Delegates has approved and presented to its Supreme Court a proposed rule and comments that are substantially the same as the new Model Rule 4.2. Available at Note that the Virgin Islands automatically updates its rules to the latest adopted version of the ABA Model Rules. Idaho s State Bar Ethics 2000 Committee is in the process of taking7 Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party Alter Ego or Managing/Speaking Agent Test Under this view, contact is allowed with anyone except with those who have the legal power to bind the corporation in the matter and/or those who are so closely identified with the interests of the corporation as to be indistinguishable from it, those who are responsible for implementing the advice of the corporation s lawyer, or any member of the corporation whose own interests are directly at stake in the litigation. This is the position adopted by the Restatement, as well as numerous courts. 22 The purpose of this rule is to prevent opposing counsel from taking unfair advantage of a represented organizational entity in the absence of its attorney, but is not designed to protect the opposing corporation from all adverse disclosures. 23 Forbidding communications with those who can implement the advice of counsel is deemed sufficient to protect the corporation s attorney-client privilege. 24 Communications testimony on whether and to what extent to amend the state s rule and comments to the ABA s Model. Updates of such review are available at Montana s State Bar Ethics Committee has issued a report to the Board of Trustees that recommends amending Montana s Rule and Comments to conform to the ABA Ethics 2000 changes. Available at introduction.html. See also Comments to Tennessee s Rule 4.2, effective March 2003, available at (prohibiting ex parte contact with those who supervise or direct the organization s lawyer concerning the matter, have authority to contractually obligate the organization with respect to the matter, or otherwise participate substantially in the determination of the organization s position in the matter). Although Massachusetts has not adopted the new Comment [7], it has recently substantially revised Comment [4] to reject the admissions construction. In June 2002, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted a new Comment [4], which reads: In the case of an organization, this Rule prohibits communications by a lawyer for another person or entity concerning the matter in representation only with those agents or employees who exercise managerial responsibility in the matter, who are alleged to have committed the wrongful acts at issue in the litigation, or who have authority on behalf of the organization to make decisions about the course of the litigation. If an agent or employee of the organization is represented in the matter by his or her own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of the rule. MASS. R.OF PROF L CONDUCT R. 4.2 cmt. 4 (2003); cf R. 3.4(f). 22. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS 100 cmt. e (2000); Niesig v. Team I, 558 N.E.2d 1030, (1990); State v. CIBA-GEIGY Corp., 589 A.2d 180, (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991), appeal dismissed, 617 A.2d 1213 (1992) (but see subsequently adopted N.J. RULES OF PROF L CONDUCT R. 1.13, 4.2 prohibiting contact only with litigation control group ). See also Fulton v. Lane, 829 P.2d 959, 960 (Okla. 1992); Shealy v. Laidlaw Bros., Inc., 34 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1223 (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 1984); Weider SportsEquip. Co. v. Fitness First, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 502, (D. Utah 1996); Strawser v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 843 P.2d 613, (Wyo. 1992); Dent v. Kaufman, 406 S.E.2d 68, (W. Va. 1991). See also Branham v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 151 F.R.D. 67, 69 (S.D. W. Va. 1993) (adopting Neisig/Dent test for Federal Employers Liability Act claims). 23. See Curley v. Cumberland Farms, 134 F.R.D. 77, 88 (D.N.J. 1991), superseded by state rule amendments as recognized in Klier v. Sordono Skanska Const. Co., 766 A.2d 761, (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001) (incorporating control group test in text of rule as amended). See also Wright by Wright, 691 P.2d at Branham, 151 F.R.D. at 69 n.14.8 THE LABOR LAWYER 353 (2004) with those whose statements can be admitted as party admissions under the rules of evidence are allowed because the nature and purpose of ethical rules are different from the nature and purpose of evidentiary rules. 25 Courts have adopted this approach (or close variations) in several significant recent decisions. In March 2002, Massachusetts highest court decided in Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky, P.C. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College that Rule 4.2 prohibits ex parte contact only with those employees who exercise managerial responsibility in the matter, who are alleged to have committed the wrongful acts at issue in the litigation, or who have authority on behalf of the corporation to make decisions about the course of the litigation. 26 The court vacated a lower court s ruling that appeared to prohibit nearly all ex parte contacts with an organization s employees. The court in Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky recognized that its interpretation of Rule 4.2 is substantially the same 27 as the alter ego or managing/speaking agent test, discussed above. While the court rejected the control group test, it also explicitly rejected the Model Rule 4.2 Comment test (i.e., the pre February 2002 version of that Comment) as overly protective of the organization. 28 In December 2002, the Supreme Court of Nevada also weighed in on the issue, adopting the managing-speaking agent test in Palmer v. Pioneer Inn Associates. 29 In doing so, the court specifically declined to adopt the ABA s pre-2002 Comment to Rule 4.2, with its admissions clause. However, it also declined to adopt the 2002 version of the Comment. Instead, it interpreted Nevada s rule to prohibit ex parte contacts with an employee who can bind the organization with his or her statement Case-by-Case Balancing Tests Some courts have declined to create or apply any general rule defining the categories of employees who may be contacted, instead applying a case-by-case, fact-specific balancing test in which the plaintiff s need to gather information informally is balanced against the defendant s need for effective representation. Results of this test gen- 25. Bougé, 132 F.R.D. at See discussion infra N.E.2d 825, 833 (Mass. 2002). 27. Id. 28. Id. Comment [4] to Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 was subsequently amended to reflect the holding of the Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky court. See MASS. RULE OF PROF L CONDUCT 4.2, as amended, 437 Mass (2002). The general rule is similar in Oregon. Oregon State Bar Formal Ethics Opinion No , 1991 WL ; Brown v. State of Oregon, 173 F.R.D. 265, 267 (D. Or. 1997) P.3d 1237, 1248 (Nev. 2002). 30. Id.9 Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party 361 erally favor broad access to witnesses for plaintiff counsel, while requiring procedural safeguards similar to those described above. 31 C. Restrictive View A minority of courts have barred attorneys from interviewing current employees of a corporate defendant without consent of opposing counsel whenever the interview concerns matters within the scope of the employee s employment. 32 This view reflects the structure of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), which permits admission into evidence against a corporation of its employee s out-of-court statements that concern matters within the scope of the employee s employment. Therefore, according to this view, power to commit the organization can be vested in any corporate employee, not only those in the control group. 33 The control group definition of person or party is considered too vague, such that inadvertent prohibited contact by counsel is possible. According to these courts, attorneys can best avoid violating Rule 4.2 by not communicating with a witness about a subject 31. See, e.g., NAACP v. State of Florida, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1341 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (finding no appropriate bright-line rule to follow... rather, the better analysis is to balance the competing interests: a plaintiff s need to conduct discovery, investigate, and gather information on an informal basis and the defendant s need to protect communications and for adequate and effective representation ); B.H. by Monahan v. Johnson, 128 F.R.D. 659, 661 (N.D. Ill. 1989) ( We will not specifically adopt one of these tests, but instead will make a determination based on the facts of the case before us. ); PPG Indus., Inc. v. BASF Corp., 134 F.R.D. 118, 122 (W.D. Pa. 1990) (balancing the interests defendant wants to protect against the purpose of the rule). This was also the approach taken by many Massachusetts federal courts prior to Massachusetts adoption of its version of Rule 4.2 in 1998, and more recently, the decision in Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky, 764 N.E.2d 825, and the resulting rule change. See, e.g., Siguel v. Trustees of Tufts College, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 697 (D. Mass. 1990) (on balance of competing interests, counsel allowed to interview all defendants employees not named as defendants, whether management or not). 32. Lewis v. CSX Transp., Inc., 202 F.R.D. 464 (W.D. Va. 2001) (prohibiting counsel for injured plaintiff in FELA suit from contacting nonmanagement employees who acquired knowledge of safety conditions in the course of their employment); Tucker v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 849 F. Supp. 1096, (E.D. Va. 1994) (any communications in litigation regarding a condition of employment will seek knowledge acquired within scope of employment); Queensbury v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 157 F.R.D. 21, (E.D. Va. 1993) (contact with employees in Federal Employer s Liability Act action requires consent from defendant s attorney, but under FELA, attorney cannot lawfully withhold that consent). See also Chambers v. Capital Cities/ABC, 159 F.R.D. 441, (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (magistrate within discretion to prohibit contact with all current employees); Toliver v. Sullivan Diag. Treatment Ctr., 818 F. Supp. 71 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff d, 22 F.3d 1092 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S (1995); Cagguila v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 127 F.R.D. 653, (E.D. Pa. 1989) (precluded use of interviewee s statement at trial because defendant s counsel not informed of ex parte interview in advance; however, no bar imposed to calling interviewee as witness); Lang v. Reedy Creek Improvement Dist., 888 F. Supp (M.D. Fla 1995) (ex parte interviews with current employees of defendant permitted only with prior approval of court); San Diego Bar Assoc. Op McCallum v. CSX Transp., Inc., 149 F.R.D. 104, 111 (M.D.N.C. 1993). View more
APPENDIX 4 COURT ABBREVIATIONS This appendix contains abbreviations for federal courts. Abbreviations for state courts can be developed by consulting Appendix 1 and Rule 2 concerning abbreviations and More information Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 91-3
ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation More information Case 8:05-cv-00636-JSM-TBM Document 23 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:05-cv-00636-JSM-TBM Document 23 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MARIJA STONE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:05-cv-636-T-30TBM More information NEBRASKA ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION FOR LAWYERS NO 12-09. Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the
NEBRASKA ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION FOR LAWYERS NO 12-09 Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client s interests, including surrendering More information Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse 6/2009 State Mandatory Reporters Language on Privilege Notes Alabama
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATE STATUTORY REFERENCE GUIDE 41 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATE STATUTORY REFERENCE GUIDE The following references to statutes relevant to medical malpractice cases are intended exclusively More information What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration
What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration Russell R. Yurk Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P. 2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1049 (602) 234-7819 More information ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT
ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT Mark J. Oberti Oberti Sullivan LLP 723 Main Street, Suite 340 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 401-3556 mark@osattorneys.com Edwin Sullivan Oberti Sullivan LLP 723 Main More information 5/12/2015 AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS PURPOSE OF AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS
Pretrial Practice 2015 4:00 P.M. PANEL TOPIC SETTLEMENT AGGREGATE SETTLEMENT CONCERNS May 12, 2015 New York, New York Kelly Strange Crawford, Esq. AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS Class Actions SINGLE LAW SUIT PROCEEDING More information ETHICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW. Judith E. Harris. whether to provide representation and/or indemnification for individual employees;
ETHICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW I. INTRODUCTION Judith E. Harris In today s workplace, employers are increasingly subject to lawsuits involving multiple defendants. This trend is most often evidenced More information ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE AND LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM LAWS: CITATIONS, BY STATE
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE AND LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM LAWS: CITATIONS, BY STATE (Laws current as of 12/31/06) Prepared by Lori Stiegel and Ellen Klem of the American Bar Association More information 101 UNBUNDLED LEGAL SERVICES
LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1814 UNDISCLOSED RECORDING OF THIRD PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS In this hypothetical, a Criminal Defense Lawyer represents A who is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled More information Model Regulation Service - January 1993 GUIDELINES ON GIFTS OF LIFE INSURANCE TO CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS
This chart accompanies Protection From Creditors for Retirement Plan Assets, in the January 2014 issue of The Tax Adviser. State-by-state analysis of IRAs as exempt property State State Statute IRA Alabama More information Default Definitions of Person in State Statutes
Default Definitions of Person in State Statutes State Alabama ALA. CODE 1-1-1 (2014) 1-1-1. Definitions. The following words, whenever they appear in this code, shall have the signification attached to More information No. 05-5393. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; MANESSTA BEVERLY, Plaintiff/Intervenor in District Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 05-5393 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; MANESSTA BEVERLY, Plaintiff/Intervenor in District Court v. HORA, INC. d/b/a DAYS More information National Compendium of Statutes of Repose for Products Liability and Real Estate Improvements
National Compendium of Statutes of Repose for Products Liability and Real Estate Improvements By Alan R. Levy Current as of September 1, 2010. Note: This chart is not an exhaustive list of the characteristics More information NONJUDICIAL TRANSFER OF TRUST SITUS CHART 1
NONJUDICIAL TRANSFER OF TRUST SITUS CHART 1 This chart provides a survey of the State statutory provisions for all States and the District of Columbia relating to the nonjudicial transfer of the principal More information Copyright 2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law
The Ethics of Metadata Hans P. Sinha Clinical Professor National a Center for Justice and the Rule of Law University of Mississippi School of Law Copyright 2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule More information Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) February 2010
Life Without Parole (JLWOP) February 2010 STATE LWOP Law JLWOP 1 ALABAMA YES 62 0 court Ala. Stat. 13A-6-2 ALASKA No LWOP parole always possible No -- -- - Max. age of 18 yrs. old Alaska Stat. 11.41.100 More information IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN, More information ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION. Formal Opinion 2011-01 (Collaborative Family Law)
ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION Formal Opinion 2011-01 (Collaborative Family Law) Issue: Can a family lawyer enter into a collaborative law agreement consistent with her ethical duties, notwithstanding the More information KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-402 Issued: September 1997
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-402 Issued: September 1997 Since the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct in 1990, the Kentucky Supreme Court has adopted various amendments, and More information CONTACTING REPRESENTED PARTIES: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
CONTACTING REPRESENTED PARTIES: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS By William J. Wernz and Wendy Willson Legge Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Reprinted from Minnesota Trial Lawyer (Summer More information UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN STEVEN OLSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-C-1126 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY More information Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 MARY SOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION Page 1 of More information College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Seventh Circuit
College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Seventh Circuit Challenging Issues in Government Investigations: Who does the government attorney represent and who can the government attorney contact directly (and More information LAWS ON RECORDING CONVERSATIONS IN ALL 50 STATES
MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. 1111 E. Sumner Street, P.O. Box 270670, Hartford, WI 53027 Phone: (262) 673-7850 Fax: (262) 673-3766 gwickert@mwl-law.com www.mwl-law.com LAWS ON RECORDING CONVERSATIONS More information IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 03-11688. D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK More information Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 09-03. Question Presented. Facts
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 09-03 IF THE VICTIM IN A CRIMINAL CASE THAT A COUNTY ATTORNEY IS PROSECUTING HAS RETAINED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM IN A CIVIL CASE ARISING FROM THE SAME More information PENNSYLVANIA BAR ASSOCIATION LEGAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE COMMITTEE
30 Bank Street PO Box 350 New Britain CT 06050-0350 06051 for 30 Bank Street Professional Ethics Committee P: (860) 223-4400 F: (860) 223-4488 INFORMAL OPINION 2014-06 WHEN CLIENT CONSENT IS NECESSARY More information Duties of Corporate Counsel
April 1, 2015 Making It To The Finish Line & How Not To Stumble Over Your Ethical Obligations When Handling Internal Investigations, Whistleblower Complaints & Social Media A Presentation to ACC-GNY Kathleen More information Conflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law. Janet Savage 1
Conflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law Janet Savage 1 Plaintiffs suing their former employers for wrongful discharge or employment discrimination More information Case 3:07-cv-06160-MLC-JJH Document 80 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 15
Case 3:07-cv-06160-MLC-JJH Document 80 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : LAUREN KAUFMAN, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-6160 (MLC) : More information Table of Mortgage Broker (and Originator) Bond Laws by State Current as of July 1, 2010
National Conference of State Legislatures Discrimination Laws Regarding Off-Duty Conduct Updated October 18, 2010 The issue of employees' rights to engage in certain off-duty activities and in the competing More information UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Lorrie Logsdon sued her employer, Turbines, Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 20, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LORRIE LOGSDON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TURBINES, More information 50-State Analysis. School Attendance Age Limits. 700 Broadway, Suite 810 Denver, CO 80203-3442 303.299.3600 Fax: 303.296.8332
0-State Analysis School Attendance Age Limits 700 Broadway, Suite 810 Denver, CO 80203-32 303.299.3600 Fax: 303.296.8332 Introduction School Attendance Age Limits By Marga Mikulecky April 2013 This 0-State More information THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS FORMAL OPINION 2009-6 AGGREGATE SETTLEMENTS
THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS FORMAL OPINION 2009-6 AGGREGATE SETTLEMENTS TOPIC: Multiple Representations; Aggregate Settlements; Advance More information UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL
PHARMA SUPPLY, INC., v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER MITCHELL A. STEIN and STEIN LAW, P.C., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION More information STANDARD 3.5 ON ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE LITIGANTS
STANDARD 3.5 ON ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE LITIGANTS STANDARD In appropriate circumstances, a provider may offer pro se litigants assistance or limited representation at various stages of proceedings. COMMENTARY More information SURVEY OF THE CURRENT INSURANCE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FOR AFFINITY MARKETIG 1 A
SURVEY OF THE CURRENT INSURANCE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FOR AFFINITY MARKETIG ARRANGEMENTS (FORC Journal: Vol. 23 Edition 4 - Winter 2012) Kevin G. Fitzgerald, Esq. (414) 297-5841 N. Wesley Strickland (850) More information Nursing Home Litigation- Winning Strategies for the Next Decade-November 2010
Nursing Home Litigation- Winning Strategies for the Next Decade-November 2010 Ethical Considerations in Prosecuting and Defending the Nursing Home Case Presentation: November 4, 2010- OKC- Doug Shelton, More information ETHICAL CURVE BALLS THROWN AT LAWYERS HANDLING INSURANCE COVERAGE AND DEFENSE MATTERS. By: Bruce A. Campbell 1
ETHICAL CURVE BALLS THROWN AT LAWYERS HANDLING INSURANCE COVERAGE AND DEFENSE MATTERS By: Bruce A. Campbell 1 Much has been written about the duties and ethical obligations of insurance defense counsel More information Table A-7. State Medical Record Laws: Minimum Medical Record Retention Periods for Records Held by Medical Doctors and Hospitals*
Summary of statutory or regulatory provision by entity. Alabama As long as may be necessary to treat the patient and for medical legal purposes. Ala. Admin. Code r. 545-X-4-.08 (2007). (1) 5 years. Ala. More information Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship
Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship [click] By Bruce A. Campbell 1 Introduction In most areas of the practice of law, there are a number of ethical issues that arise on a frequent More information Video Voyeurism Laws
Video Voyeurism Laws Federal Law Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C.A. 1801. Jurisdiction limited to maritime and territorial jurisdiction, or federal property including but not limited to More information Employee Relations. Howard S. Lavin and Elizabeth E. DiMichele
VOL. 34, NO. 4 SPRING 2009 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Split Circuits Does Charging Party s Receipt of a Right-to-Sue Letter and Commencement of a Lawsuit Divest the EEOC of its Investigative More information Case: 04-16887 Doc #: 122 Filed: 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 OPINION DESIGNATED FOR ON - LINE PUBLICATION BUT NOT PRINT PUBLICATION
Case: 04-16887 Doc #: 122 Filed: 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 14 day of October, 2008. ROBERT E. NUGENT UNITED STATES CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE OPINION DESIGNATED FOR ON - LINE PUBLICATION More information The Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Application in Litigation. by George O. Peterson
The Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Application in Litigation by George O. Peterson I. INTRODUCTION Trusts and estates attorneys who represent fiduciaries may have little occasion More information STATE BY STATE ANTI-INDEMNITY STATUTES. Sole or Partial Negligence. Alaska X Alaska Stat. 45.45.900. Except for hazardous substances.
State STATE BY STATE ANTI-INDEMNITY STATUTES Sole Negligence Sole or Partial Negligence Closes A.I. Loophole Comments Alabama Alaska Alaska Stat. 45.45.900. Except for hazardous substances. Arizona (Private More information Defending Take-Home Exposure Cases Duty in the Context of Premises and Employer Liability
Defending Take-Home Exposure Cases Duty in the Context of Premises and Employer Liability Presented by Deborah K. St. Lawrence Thompson, Counsel Miles & Stockbridge, P.C. Baltimore, Maryland September More information IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD.
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE More information Model Regulation Service April 2005 GUIDELINES ON CORPORATE OWNED LIFE INSURANCE
Model Regulation Service April 2005 Corporate Owned Life Insurance (COLI) is life insurance a corporate employer buys covering one or more employees. With COLI, the employer is generally the applicant, More information National Labor Relations Board Rules That Mandatory Arbitration Clause Violates The National Labor Relations Act
National Labor Relations Board Rules That Mandatory Arbitration Clause Violates The National Labor Relations Act October 16, 2006 In a recent decision potentially affecting all companies that use mandatory More information PRIMARY SOURCES BY JURISDICTION
APPENDIX 1 PRIMARY SOURCES BY JURISDICTION This appendix contains citation information about reporters, statutory compilations, session laws, and administrative compilations and registers for state, territorial, More information *Rule 1.4(a) *Rule 1.16(a) *Rule 1.16(a)(2) *Rule 1.16(b) *Rule 3.3 *DR7-102(A)(4) *DR7-102(A)(6)
NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Committee Formal Opinion 1993-94/7 Candor to Tribunal: Use of Questionable Evidence In Criminal Defense January 27, 1994 RULE REFERENCES: *Rule 1.2 *Rule 1.2(a) *Rule More information United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1452 PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, More information Gen. 101] 101 ATTORNEYS. June 27, 2005
Gen. 101] 101 ATTORNEYS UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW LAY PERSON S COMPLETION OF STANDARD COMPUTER-GENERATED LOAN FORMS WITH FACTUAL INFORMATION NOT UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW June 27, 2005 Mr. Charles More information UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BMG MUSIC, More information NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 14-1
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 14-1 Social workers and other healthcare professionals may not report child or elder abuse without the express contemporaneous permission of the lawyer for whom they are doing More information Chart Overview of Nurse Practitioner Scopes of Practice in the United States
Chart Overview of Nurse Practitioner Scopes of Practice in the United States Sharon Christian, JD, Catherine Dower, JD, Edward O Neil, PhD, MPA, FAAN Center for the Health Professions University of California, More information CAN YOU PUT AN INDEPENDENT FACT WITNESS UNDER A CONTRACT THAT PROVIDES THAT HE OR SHE WILL NOT TALK TO OPPOSING COUNSEL VOLUNTARILY?
CAN YOU PUT AN INDEPENDENT FACT WITNESS UNDER A CONTRACT THAT PROVIDES THAT HE OR SHE WILL NOT TALK TO OPPOSING COUNSEL VOLUNTARILY? 1 I. Introduction by Charles L. Gholz 2 and Bryan J. Byerly 3 This article More information IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a DELOS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Civil No. CCB-12-1373 ALLIED INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. MEMORANDUM This suit arises More information ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION Formal Opinion 2014-1 (Ghostwriting by Contract Lawyers and Out-of-State Lawyers)
ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION Formal Opinion 2014-1 (Ghostwriting by Contract Lawyers and Out-of-State Lawyers) Issue: What ethical issues are raised when (1) a lawyer licensed to practice law only outside More information Can You Keep A Secret? How the Attorney- Client and Self-Evaluative Privileges Can Apply to Your Compliance Practice
Can You Keep A Secret? How the Attorney- Client and Self-Evaluative Privileges Can Apply to Your Compliance Practice Pamela J. Grimm grimmp@msx.upmc.edu Associate Counsel UPMC Health System 200 Lothrop More information NON-LICENSEE INTERNET ADVERTISING AND REFERRALS. Marc M. Tract, Esq. 212.940.8760
NON-LICENSEE INTERNET ADVERTISING AND REFERRALS Marc M. Tract, Esq. 212.940.8760 It has been five years since the New York Insurance Department ( New York Department ) issued Circular Letter No. 5 (2001)(the More information Multijurisdictional Practice of Law for In-House Counsel
Multijurisdictional Practice of Law for In-House Counsel Presentation for Association of Corporate Counsel - Charlotte March 2010 Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Robert E. Harrington and Peter C. Buck More information Case 2:08-cv-02646-JWL Document 108 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:08-cv-02646-JWL Document 108 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS Alice L. Higgins, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-2646-JWL John E. Potter, Postmaster General, More information WHEN A CHILD MAY HAVE A TORT CLAIM: WHAT S THE CHILD S COURT- APPOINTED ATTORNEY TO DO?
WHEN A CHILD MAY HAVE A TORT CLAIM: WHAT S THE CHILD S COURT- APPOINTED ATTORNEY TO DO? The Oregon Child Advocacy Project Professor Leslie J. Harris and Child Advocacy Fellows Colin Love-Geiger and Alyssa More information Corporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Corporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule' More information Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
American Bar Association CPR Policy Implementation Committee Variations of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a More information Case 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 JOHN and JOANNA ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-1731-T-33TBM More information Comment, A STATE SURVEY DUAL REPRESENTATION IN ADOPTION
\\jciprod01\productn\m\mat\27-2\mat207.txt unknown Seq: 1 29-JUL-15 10:30 Vol. 27, 2015 Dual Representation in Adoption 481 Comment, A STATE SURVEY DUAL REPRESENTATION IN ADOPTION Dual representation is More information Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs, More information Lawyer Mobility in the Context of Corporate Law Departments
Lawyer Mobility in the Context of Corporate Law Departments Presented by: William H. Roberts, Blank Rome LLP Jeremy A. Rist, Blank Rome LLP Kevin M. Passerini, Blank Rome LLP I. Do corporations need to More information Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525
Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 TROVILLION CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.; and CASA JARDIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE More information Annuity Marketplace. ACLI 2011 Compliance and. Jason A. Walters jwalters@babc.com
Annuity Marketplace ACLI 2011 Compliance and Legal Sections Annual Meeting Jason A. Walters jwalters@babc.com babc.com ALABAMA I DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I MISSISSIPPI I NORTH CAROLINA I TENNESSEE Topics Class More information Postsecondary. Tuition and Fees. Tuition-Setting Authority for Public Colleges and Universities. By Kyle Zinth and Matthew Smith October 2012
Postsecondary Tuition and Fees Introduction Tuition-Setting Authority for Public Colleges and Universities By Kyle Zinth and Matthew Smith October 2012 Who sets tuition? Regardless of the state in question, More information ^^^^ A S S O C I AT I ON
?^}^1 OHIO STATE BAR ^^^^ A S S O C I AT I ON EST I880 OSBA Informal Advisory Opinion 2011-02 December 2, 2011 Re: Request for Informal Advisory Opinion You have requested the opinion of the Ohio State More information Model Regulation Service October 1993
Table of Contents Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Section 1. Model Regulation Service October 1993 PERMITTING SMOKER/NONSMOKER MORTALITY TABLES Authority Purpose More information LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS BUSINESS PRACTICES MANUAL
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS BUSINESS PRACTICES MANUAL Subject: Compliance With False Claims Acts Section: 27.0 Under Federal and State Laws Update: January 2015 Replaces: January 2013 Initiated More information Case 4:10-cv-00019-CDL Document 13 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION
Case 4:10-cv-00019-CDL Document 13 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ATS INTERMODAL, LLC, a corporation; GARLAND B. BEASLEY; More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added More information This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-0911 Kristina Jean Powers, Appellant, vs. Superintendent More information OPINION 2014-2 Issued August 8, 2014. Imputation of Conflicts in a Part-Time County Prosecutor s Law Firm
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE 65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431 Telephone: 614.387.9370 Fax: 614.387.9379 www.supremecourt.ohio.gov DAVID E. TSCHANTZ CHAIR More information Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics. Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey
N.J.L.J. N.J.L. Opinion 699 Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Collaborative Law Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey This inquiry involves application More information State Income and Franchise Tax Laws that Conform to the REIT Modernization Act of 1999 (May 1, 2001). 1
State Income and Franchise Tax Laws that Conform to the REIT Modernization Act of 1999 (May 1, 2001). 1 1. Alabama does not adopt the Code on a regular basis but instead specifically incorporates only More information INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, 2008 ANNUAL CONFERENCE, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, 2008 ANNUAL CONFERENCE, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR By: Marion J. Radson City Attorney City of More information Listing of Mortgage Broker Definitions
State Definition Citation Text ALABAMA MORTGAGE BROKERS LICENSING ACT Mortgage broker means any person who directly or indirectly solicits, Ala. Code 5 25 2(9) processes, places, or negotiates mortgage More information LEGAL BARRIERS FOR PEOPLE IN RECOVERY FROM DRUG AND ALCOHOL ADDICTION: LICENSES AND CREDENTIALS
LEGAL BARRIERS FOR PEOPLE IN RECOVERY FROM DRUG AND ALCOHOL ADDICTION: LICENSES AND CREDENTIALS There are many legal obstacles facing people who have overcome addiction and are in good recovery. This memorandum More information FALSE CLAIMS ACT PRACTICE PUBLICATIONS AND SPEECHES
FALSE CLAIMS ACT PRACTICE PUBLICATIONS AND SPEECHES FALSE CLAIMS ACT PUBLICATIONS Books Peter Hutt, Contractor and Subcontractor Liability Under the False Claims Act and Introduction to Damages and Penalties, More information ETHICAL AND MALPRACTICE ISSUES IN PROBATE ADMINISTRATION. by Mark J. Fucile
CHAPTER 7 ETHICAL AND MALPRACTICE ISSUES IN PROBATE ADMINISTRATION by Mark J. Fucile Fucile & Reising LLP 115 NW First Ave., Suite 401 Portland, OR 97209 503.224.4895 mark@frllp.com www.frllp.com How to More information KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-290 Issued: September 1984
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-290 Issued: September 1984 This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was in effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult More information I. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(4)(C): COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS AND EXPERTS
National Employment Lawyers Association PREVENTING WAGE THEFT: A Two-Day Guide To Litigating Cases Involving Wages, Hours & Work Friday, March 8- Saturday, 9, 2013 Holiday Inn Chicago Mart Plaza, Chicago, More information FACTUAL BACKGROUND. former co-workers of the decedents with whom they worked at common job sites, in common
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION This Document Refers To: WALTER SKY x Index No.: 105281/2000 RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER FACTUAL More information EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE/ETHICAL ISSUES FOR EMPLOYERS. CLE September 2013
EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE/ETHICAL ISSUES FOR EMPLOYERS CLE September 2013 T WO MAJOR T YPES OF REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS Class Actions (opt-out classes) Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) Haw. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) Title More information 2016 © DocPlayer.net Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback