Opinion ID: 1135978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: our view

Text: We agree with these opinions that neither Model Rule 4.2 nor its Florida counterpart, rule 4-4.2, extend the rules' prohibitions against contact with represented persons to former employees of defendant-employers who can no longer speak for or bind the organization. Importantly, the ethics committee opinion correctly recognizes that former employees can no longer speak for or bind a corporation and, as a consequence of their free agency, any statements obtained from former employees during ex parte communications would ordinarily be inadmissible against the corporation. Florida Bar Professional Ethics Comm. Op. 88-14 at 2. [3] Of course, it was the concern about the effect and use of the statements of agents and employees that gave rise to the need for the ethical restriction on contacts with current employees of a defendant-employer whose statements and admissions could be used as admissions or direct evidence to bind or speak for an employer. That is the concern that the comment to the rule specifically attempts to address: identifying those categories of current agents and employees who should not be contacted without the consent of the organization's counsel. Further, the whole tenor of the comment to rule 4-4.2 set out above indicates that the rule is concerned solely with current employees. The comment states that communications are prohibited 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. See Rule Regulating Fla. Bar 4-4.2 (comment). Since the imputation of responsibility for the acts of others or admissions from agents or servants can only be made during the existence of the relationship, section 90.803(18)(e), Florida Statutes (1995), the comment's disjunctive connection with the preceding clause logically means that clause also pertains to current employees. In other words, it means an attorney cannot ethically communicate with an employee whose actions may impute negligence or criminal liability to the corporation or whose statements may constitute admissions at that time, i.e., at the time the current employee is acting or speaking. These categories clearly identify certain persons whose statements or actions, by virtue of their present status as employees or agents, may directly affect their employer's legal position. Both in its brief and at oral argument, HBA relies on the fact that in recently amending Model Rule 4.2, the ABA committee expanded the rule's coverage to include any person, whether or not a party to a formal adjudicative proceeding ... who is represented by counsel concerning the matter to which the communication relates. Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 cmt. 3 (1995). Of course, the comment to Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-4.2 already contained that provision long before the ABA committee acted in 1995 to adopt the same language. The more expansive coverage simply means an attorney may not directly contact any person he or she knows is represented by counsel concerning the dispute, not merely those who are named parties to the litigation. It is therefore clear, with the amendment, that current employees are covered by the rule even though they may not be formal parties in a court case. Most importantly, as noted by the ABA committee in its interpretation of the amended rule, Model Rule 4.2 does not prohibit contacts with former officers and employees of a represented corporation, even if they were in one of the categories with which communication was prohibited while they were employed.  ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Op. 95-396 at 7 n. 47 (1995) (emphasis supplied). The focus of the rule and comment remains on those individuals still with the organization and presumably represented by the organization's counsel, while neither contemplating nor prohibiting ex parte communications with former employees. [4] We also note that ABA Formal Opinion 95-396, on which HBA also places considerable reliance, recognizes this distinction. Indeed, the following passage appears on the first page of the opinion: When a corporation or other organization is known to be represented with respect to a particular matter, the bar applies only to communications with those employees who have managerial responsibility, those whose act or omission may be imputed to the organization, and those whose statements may constitute admissions by the organization with respect to the matter in question. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Op. 95-396 at 1 (1995) (emphasis added). Clearly, the opinion refers to current employees in the positions specified. [5] Barfuss approved a prohibition on contact with former employees on the basis that the employees who cared for and treated Barfuss are the very persons whose actions or inactions form the basis for the complaint. 656 So.2d at 489. The opinion fails to note, however, that it is the past actions or inactions of former employees that have been put in issue. However, those former employees can no longer speak or act for the employer. The precise reason the policy discouraging ex parte communications does not apply in this context is that the corporation is no longer the employer of the former employee. Hence, a former employee's actions or inactions can no longer bind or result in vicarious liability for the former employer for the very reason that the employer-employee relationship has been dissolved.