Opinion ID: 2621232
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Party-opponent admission test

Text: The test based on the hearsay rule appears to encompass almost as many employees as the blanket test, and is the test adopted by the federal district court in this matter. This test encompasses within the ethical rule any employee whose statement might be admissible as a party-opponent admission under FRE 801(d)(2)(D) and its state counterparts. [25] According to the evidence rule, an employee's statement is not hearsay, and thus is freely admissible against the employer, if it concerns a matter within the scope of the employee's employment, and is made during the employee's period of employment. The courts adopting the party-opponent admission test have concluded that the former comment's reference to admissions was clearly meant to incorporate the rules of evidence governing admissions. In Brown v. St. Joseph County, [26] an Indiana federal district court quoted a leading treatise in reasoning that the evidentiary test gave `a sound practical cast to the rule: those who can hurt or bind the organization with respect to the matter at hand are off limits except for formal discovery or except with the consent of the entity's lawyer.' This test's primary advantage is that it protects the organization from potentially harmful admissions made by its employees to opposing counsel, without the organization's counsel's presence. The organization's interest in this regard is particularly strong because such admissions are generally recognized as a very persuasive form of evidence. [27] The drawback of this test is that it essentially covers all or almost all employees, since any employee could make statements concerning a matter within the scope of his or her employment, and thus could potentially be included within the rule. [28] Thus, the party-opponent admission test can effectively serve as a blanket test, thus frustrating the search for truth. [29] An attorney attempting to comply with Rule 11's requirements would be faced with two unenviable choices. The first option would be not to contact persons who might be the best, if not the only, source of corroborating information. This option would ensure that the attorney complies with SCR 182's prohibitions, but would result in the attorney's failure to comply with Rule 11. The second option would be for the attorney to second-guess what an employee might say, in an attempt to determine whether contact might be permissible, which would result in the attorney risking an SCR 182 violation. [30] In addition, a party admission may be challenged through impeachment of the witness, by presenting contradictory evidence, or by explaining the admission. [31] Accordingly, it is not clear that this test properly balances the competing policies.