Opinion ID: 1135978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conclusion

Text: A former employee is simply no longer in the position of the person contemplated by rule 4-4.2's restrictions. That former employees may have engaged in actions or inactions while they were employed that may give rise to liability of the employer is simply a matter of historical fact. In this regard we agree with the Florida Bar Ethics Committee and the Wright court that there is no valid reason to distinguish between former employees who witnessed an event and those whose act or omission caused the event. Florida Bar Professional Ethics Comm. Op. 88-14 at 3 (citing Wright, 691 P.2d at 569). An employee's departure terminates the agency or respondeat superior connection that had previously permitted that employee to create liability for her employer or to bind or make admissions for that employer. Hence, the underlying concerns and purpose of rule 4-4.2 is simply no longer served by restricting contacts with former employees. In summary, we hold that Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-4.2 was intended to specifically regulate an attorney's contact with a person represented by counsel and the rule neither contemplates nor prohibits an attorney's ex parte communications with former employees of a defendant-employer. [6] Accordingly, we approve the decision below, as well as that in Reynoso, and disapprove Barfuss to the extent it is inconsistent herewith. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.