Opinion ID: 2621232
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The arguments of the parties and amici

Text: Palmer first argues that the admission clause of the former comment should not be followed. [56] She contends that it is difficult for an attorney who is attempting to comply with Rule 11 while not violating ethical rules. According to Palmer, the former comment thus chills proper representation of clients against an organizational opponent. Instead, Palmer advocates the New York test. In the event this court decides to apply the admission clause, Palmer argues that the party-opponent admission test relied upon by the district court is too broad, and that the managing-speaking agent test should be adopted. Pioneer argues that this court should apply the admission clause, and relies on this court's citation to the comments generally in Cronin and Schaefer. [57] Pioneer further argues that the federal district court appropriately applied the party-opponent admission test, because any other test renders the admission clause superfluous. Pioneer also relies on the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, which provides that attorneys are prohibited from contacting employees whose statements would have the effect of binding the organization with respect to proof of the matter. [58] Pioneer argues that this language is the same as applying the party-opponent admission test to interpret the admission clause. The Restatement is considerably narrower, however, because the party-opponent admission test does not bind the organization to the admissionwhile the admission is admissible, the organization is free to offer evidence contradicting the admission and/or impeaching the party who made it. [59] The comments to the Restatement itself indicate that it in no way advocates a standard based on the party-opponent admission rule, but rather that its proposed rule follows the New York approach. [60] In its amicus brief, the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association argues that the admission clause should not be followed, and cites heavily to the Ethics 2000 Commission's reports and drafts. [61] In the event this court decides to follow the admission clause, the NTLA essentially repeats Palmer's arguments that a managing-speaking agent test should be adopted rather than the party-opponent admission test. Finally, in its amicus brief, the state bar recommends that the admission clause be rejected, and that we adopt the test crafted by the New York Court of Appeals. The state bar strongly argues that the policies behind the rule are best served by the New York test. In a final paragraph, the state bar recommends that in the event this court applies the admission clause, the managing-speaking agent test would be preferable.