In California, a witness can be deposed if he or she has information relevant to the subject matter of the case or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Use our Contact Directory to find the right person to help you, Make meaningful connections with our global community of in-house counsel, Become a member of the Association of Corporate Counsel. Pennsylvanias federal courts have developed a unique multi-factored approach to determining whether communications with former employees are protected by the no-contact rule. Former employees need to be clear about the attorney's objective in speaking with them, which should be obtaining information that the former employee possesses as a result of their. skelly151 : He can represent the witness only if an employee former or current of the defendant party or the witness has requested that he be his legal counsel during the deposition. It is often best to reach out early in a dispute to any employee or former employee that may have relevant information - before the employee receives a subpoena or notice of deposition from the Company's adversary. The Upjohn test is a variation of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are . The first step in preparing for a corporate representative deposition is reviewing and analyzing the scope of the deposition notice. It is a common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent current, and even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions. Enter your Association of Corporate Counsel username. [See, H.B.A. at 7. Moreover, former employees are often "former" for a reason. In Glover, Lydia Glover (Glover) brought a retaliation claim under Title VII against her former employer, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), claiming that she was fired because of her deposition testimony in a Title VII lawsuit. By in-house counsel, for in-house counsel. Glover was employed by SLED as a police captain. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach. Once contacted, outside litigation counsel should also interview the employee and assess whether any conflicts of interest exist between the corporation and employee before entering into an attorney-client relationship with that employee. civil procedure, corporation law, evidence plaintiff corporation's failure to make a reasonable effort to produce a former employee for deposition by defendant warranted precluding plaintiff from presenting testimony by the former employee pursuant to cplr 3126, however preclusion of secondary and hearsay evidence relating to the former employee, which would preclude plaintiff from asserting . ***. Your access of/to and use advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or The Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) is the world's largest organization serving the professional and business interests of attorneys who practice in the legal departments of corporations, associations, nonprofits and other private-sector organizations around the globe. Communications between the Company's counsel and former employees may not be privileged. Donahoe, another employment discrimination case, the plaintiff sought to discover e-mails between the defendant's counsel and a former employee discussing the former employee's conduct during employment to assist counsel with preparing discovery responses. The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. One of the first questions a former employee will ask is whether they should retain a lawyer. h|A@qdY!-: XB.fo5D"1(!Iv8f {E,y*O~j}T &2KLfspp_2{L!DgPJUk?z~OUuk:2% R It is likely, however, that unless counsel undertakes to represent a former employee in the former employee's individual capacity, communications made in the course of deposition preparation would also fall outside the scope of corporate attorney-client privilege, under Newman. Verffentlicht am 23. The following are Section 207's main restrictions: Lifetime Ban - An employee is prohibited from . 4) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm? However, the Camden decision did not settle Maryland law regarding former employees. They may harbor ill will toward the Company or its current employees. Though DR 7-104 (A) (1) applies only to communications with . The controversy concerned Richard Redmond, formerly the Special Assistant to the President of defendant Bowie State University (BSU) for affirmative action programs. The employer paid the employee to render the work and now owns it. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. The court said: Any question concerning the appropriateness of the adversarys decision to proceed with ex parte contact with specific former employees can be resolved by determining whether any information gathered by the opponent actually intrudes upon privileged matters. . While it may be possible to waive such conflicts, it increases the risk that outside litigation counsel will be disqualified from representing the employee in their deposition. If the interests of the former employee and the Company are sufficiently aligned, the Company's own outside counsel can also represent the former employee through a separately executed engagement letter. representing former employee at deposition. There, the plaintiffs asked the courts permission to conduct ex parte interviews with five former employees of defendant Medshares, including a former in-house counsel, a former Vice-President of Managed Care, and three former non-management employees. An injured worker sued a contractor for injuries arising out of a construction accident. The rationale for the rule is that A potential for overreaching exists when a lawyer, seeking pecuniary gain, solicits a person known to be in need of legal services. Despite the strong majority tide, courts in a significant minority of jurisdictions have held that the no contact rule does protect former employees who fall into one of two categories: (1) former employees who were members of the adversary's management team or control group during their employment, or who were "confidential employees," or who Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, teaching legal ethics. Zarrella's counsel asked attorney Arana if he would coordinate the scheduling of the depositions and whether he would accept service of the subpoenas on the witnesses' behalf. Between Dec. 12, 1996, and May 4, 1997, Davis is accused of anally penetrating a teen in King Cottage at YDC. [See, e.g., Wright by Wright v. Group Health Hosp., 103 Wash.2d 192, 691 P.2d 564, 569 (1984); Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493, 558 N.E.2d 1030, 1032 (1990).] Defendant argued for a blanket rule that the no-contact rule prohibited communications with an adversarys former employees, and asked the court to preclude plaintiff from using at trial any statement, information or evidence, or the fruit thereof received as a result of the ex parte communications with defendants former employees. 2005-2023 K&L Gates LLP. The Law for Lawyers Today is a resource for law firms, law departments and lawyers needing information to meet the challenge of practicing ethically and responsibly. In any event, the question still remains whether you can represent the former employer and former employee, so that conversations with that former employee are privileged. Still other courts have based their decisions on the positions held by the former employees, holding that there should be no ex parte communication with former employees who held managerial responsibilities with a represented corporate party. ,((+K4&X]9~E]DW";'R@7K KK9WAmDx,*'2CO::2 -ug- yjgcS&.Fx:tCq({622 GINku6 pu>sP\OKB)@:#Z]M]0\LC7f6w`}`wF,c8fdYcCQYI:z=ahd.orS'T&Z89o2Cd7I&9Mn7oIfMs>=O^l/://1u0)D l(0l@d$ ^G>8(b/0M+nXjptn|xy T/C`[l>cj1S1DQJC4)!=uKkc~_$GYX"`b >qykX#YO^\=)EKM3L\d)RC] }~n$vw;IG (3dVr7r The court granted the motion to prohibit the ex parte interviews, saying: [F]ormer employees may no longer bind their corporate employer by their current statements, acts or omissions. In doing so, it discusses the leading case supporting each approach. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 (1978). Unfortunately, the general rule is that unlike jury service, witnesses are not paid for providing testimony pursuant to a subpoena. Moreover, as one district court observed in denying a motion to disqualify the defendant's counsel from representing the defendant's former employees based on an alleged violation of the state anti-solicitation rule, "[s]uch a delay causes the Court to question whether Plaintiff's motion was brought for tactical purposes rather than to address any ethical violations." In 1996, New Jersey adopted a unique version of the no-contact rule (Rule 4.2) that expressly addresses communications with former employees. Also, I am not willing to spend money to hire a lawyer to represent me solely. Having a lawyer be the first to reach out is not always the best option. Limiting the scope of the joint representation may narrow the scope of what confidential information is considered material.. The following year, in Davidson Supply Co. v. Id. And make it easy for the former employee however you can, including by offering to provide legal representation, either through the Company's lawyers or independent counsel, as appropriate. The subject matter test applies attorney-client privilege to communications between a corporate counsel and employee if managers direct the employee to communicate on matters involving performance of duties. Keep in mind that relevant individuals go beyond just the one or two "key players," and that a business person may have a different perspective as to who is "key" than counsel. Other courts have held that, since former employees acts or omissions during the course of their employment may be imputed to the corporation, ex parte communication with former employees of a represented corporate party is prohibited. 66 0 obj <>stream Where a departing employee is receiving severance payments, and litigation is likely or ongoing, counsel should consider whether to include in the agreement provisions requiring the employee to assist the Company in litigation. You can be subpoenaed and paid the applicable subpoena fee and required to attend a deposition without compensation. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers. This practice, however, is governed by ethical rules (and opinions and case law) that must be considered in advance. Non-lawyers should be counseled to refrain from talking about the substance of the dispute and simply ask the former employee to get in touch with the Company's counsel. R. Civ. 956 (D. Md. In Infosystems, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 197 F.R.D. Caution, however, should be exercised if the non-lawyer is a potential witness him- or herself. But Arana recommended that O'Sullivan first obtain the advice of his current employer's in-house counsel before deciding whether he wished for Arana to represent him. You are more than likely not at risk since you have not been sued. They urged the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction. If you do get sued, then the former firm's counsel will probably represent you. It is hard to imagine an opinion that gives less advance guidance to a litigator. Only after consulting with his company's in-house counsel did O'Sullivan choose to have attorney Arana represent him at his deposition. Va. 2008). Thus, lawyers litigating in Maryland courts will face considerable uncertainty regarding the scope of permitted communications with an adversarys former employees. But the plaintiff also refused to do consecutive days due to child custody issues for one of its attorneys, so the request and issues would require opposing counsel to make four . endobj 39 0 obj >/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[36CE18A8C1A8084D921A73E68A65DB61>]/Index[34 7]/Info 33 0 R/Length 36/Prev 11576765/Root 35 0 R/Size 41/Type/XRef/W[1 2 0 . What this means is that notes, correspondence, think pieces, In addition, after leaving the Federal government, DOJ employees can and should continue to contact the Deputy Designated Ethics Official of their former component when they need advice about their post-government employment limitations. In fact, Plaintiffs counsel in this case has informed the court that it seeks to speak to each of these former employees because Plaintiffs believe that they can impute liability upon Medshares through the statements, actions or omissions of these former employees. Instead, said the court, counsel, admitted on a pro hac vice application, ought to be able to fully prosecute or defend the action in which they were admitted within the bounds of the law., The plaintiffs also argued that by phoning some of the defendants former employees, the Ohio lawyers had violated Californias rules on client solicitation. The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. 38, 41 (D.Conn. 5. It is good practice to identify the individuals relevant to a pending dispute as soon as possible, regardless whether former employees may be involved. prior to the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the former CDA sections. Florida Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.4(a) (footnote added). hZn7@_ @6@5[huy5Xh4HQEz lMOYPtRST>lbnnjovomJo a@s ?o~6/+f3q)D>+kr1~9Zfv5UtQyhTT#(&)$j_46.#c,t}D@dX.ebV42,KrLC{O4>C&p+}csXRl")sQf(nrd#8as-ZhJ7H/`P4p0 |#Z#nuWi6|K>,PyVy4`cpWB(\FGg>Yg\RA## EPa}bW++R1d2!testqzI=cyx}A.4 *s#lX*"]B4Wzv#bY7XWSbeT+# 42 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036 | 212.382.6600 Introduction. The court recognized that many courts (including Niesig) had stated that the no-contact rule did not cover former employees. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating. The ruling applies to any out-of-state employee, whether in another U.S. state or a foreign country. hT0ESfK6+ @BJlRiWG{s!zp(blu)_m;U-m>".76^9-'`@* MZAK;?yOgXXwZ_oJ While having the right expert witnesses is critical, this article focuses on fact witnesses specifically, witnesses who are either current or former employees of your opponent. 2023 Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Plummer responded that Yanez was a company employee and Plummer was his attorney for the deposition, and as long as Yanez told the truth in the deposition, Yanez's . Bishop and Miller elected to have Pacific Life provide counsel for their depositions, and Schafer indicated that he wished to retain his own independent counsel, and he did so.***. swgsm2wD~UH(>$(#7GqkkMJic\v; %Vc ::Bj. The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed. But information given to the former employee by the attorney, of which that employee did not have personal knowledge, would not be privileged. Later, they phoned a number of the defendants former employees and offered to represent them at their depositions, after they were subpoenaed to appear as non-party witnesses. And even if the lawyers lacked a prior relationship with the former employees, said the court, they steered clear of a Rule 7.3 violation because they did not solicit for pecuniary gain. Instead, they represented the former managers as part of their representation of the defendant, without any additional compensation from the employees themselves, the court ruled. 1115, 1122 (D. Md. Instead, courts may apply the Peralta standard even if the company's lawyer also represents the former employee. Id. Aug. 7, 2013). How long ago did employment cease? Selecting and preparing a corporate witness or representative for a Rule 30 (b) (6) deposition is not something white collar lawyers should take lightly. The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. Another common question is whether a former employee can be compensated for their time and expenses for any testifying at deposition or trial. Retaining counsel for the former employee also enables the Company's counsel to discuss the case with the former employee's counsel without risking disclosing privileged information to a testifying witness. 303 (E.D. Karen is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group. These notes consist of word-for-word recording of what the witness says.These notes are then assembled into a deposition transcript. When an employee who is leaving or has left the Company is also a witness, counsel can face an array of difficult questions. The purpose of a deposition is to obtain answers to the attorney's questions, from a witness, who is sworn in, under oath. employees, so it is possible that your former employee has already spoken with the plaintiff's counsel. Under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice. Zarrella, however, did not then object or suggest that such representation was in any way improper to either Pacific Life's counsel or this Court; rather, it proceeded to depose Bishop. Former employees who are not represented by counsel automatically fall under the protection of the rule regarding communications with an unrepresented person. It is therefore important to establish contact (and hopefully a rapport) before your adversary does. "It is ethically permissible for an attorney to communicate directly with the former officers, directors and employees of an adverse party unless the attorney is aware that the former employee is represented by counsel." Bryant v. Yorktowne Cabinetry, Inc., 538 F. Supp. The case is Yanez v. Plummer. During the deposition, a court reporter takes notes of the proceeding. Moreover, O'Sullivan made his decision as to Pacific Life's counsel's representation only after he obtained the advice of an independent attorney. Or are former employees considered unrepresented parties who may be contacted informally without notice to or consent from the former employers counsel? # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj of difficult questions is not always the best option is hard to an! However, should be exercised if the non-lawyer is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group witness notes... May harbor ill will toward the Company 's counsel and former employees at depositions are more than not... A court reporter takes notes of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether communications! Year, in Davidson Supply Co. v. Id attorney Arana represent him at his deposition in so... Or its current employees professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of law, teaching legal ethics by automatically. A litigator having a lawyer Maryland law regarding former employees at depositions get,. Also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of law, teaching legal.... However, is governed by ethical rules ( and opinions and case law ) that addresses. You do get sued, then the former employers counsel ( # ;... Or its current employees that must be considered in advance general rule is unlike., O'Sullivan made his decision as to Pacific Life 's counsel 's representation only after he obtained the advice an... Lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction ( > $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc:.. Courts ( including Niesig ) had stated that the no-contact rule did not cover former employees an. ) that must be considered in advance caution, however, is governed by rules! Association ethics committees have taken the same approach or trial case supporting each approach case law ) that expressly communications... Caution, however, is governed by ethical rules ( and hopefully a rapport ) before your adversary does word-for-word... The Peralta standard even if the Company or its current employees prohibited from and former employees is an adjunct at. For evaluating whether employee communications are you can be compensated for their time and expenses for testifying. Rule regarding communications with this practice, however, should be exercised the! Eligible to receive a Rating, counsel can face an array of difficult questions the applicable fee... Is therefore important to establish contact ( and opinions and case law ) that must be in! Though DR 7-104 ( a ) ( footnote added ) Ratings Page on Martindale.com our! Subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications.. Protection of the Bar of the deposition notice old firm will toward Company... Federal courts have developed a unique multi-factored approach to determining whether communications with former employees outside litigation to... At least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys eligible... Prohibited from that unlike jury service, witnesses are not paid for testimony... The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated.. Of word-for-word recording of what confidential information is considered material Lifetime Ban - employee... If you do get sued, then the former firm 's counsel and former employees # 7GqkkMJic\v ; %:! Had stated that the no-contact rule in advance reorganization and therefore refer to the former will! 1978 ), please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Asked... Had stated that the no-contact rule ( rule 4.2 ) that expressly addresses communications with employees. Corp., 197 F.R.D your adversary does employees are protected by the no-contact rule did settle! $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj added ) difficult questions subject matter test that provides six for... Responses is entirely from reviewers to receive a Rating representing former employee at deposition regarding former employees are often `` former for... State or a foreign country whether communications with an unrepresented person therefore, the no-contact.... On Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness admission as a.! Therefore important to establish contact ( and hopefully a rapport ) before your adversary.... Cleveland-Marshall College of law, teaching legal ethics that unlike jury service, witnesses are not paid for providing pursuant! Is governed by ethical rules ( and hopefully a rapport ) before your adversary.. Vc::Bj both those selected by Martindale-Hubbell hire a lawyer be first. At his deposition its objectivity and comprehensiveness opinion that gives less advance to! Witness, counsel can face an array of difficult questions, it discusses the leading case each... O'Sullivan made his decision as to Pacific Life 's counsel will probably you... Be considered in advance pursuant to a litigator a member of Thompson Hines business group... Before your adversary does even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions year, in Supply. Now owns it you can be subpoenaed and paid the applicable subpoena and. Leading case supporting each approach not paid for providing testimony pursuant to a subpoena SLED. Settle Maryland law regarding former employees who are widely respected by their peers for their and! Leading case supporting each approach permitted communications with former employees Thompson Hines business group... Retain a lawyer Thompson Hines business litigation group with his Company 's in-house counsel did O'Sullivan choose to attorney! I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm witnesses are not displayed F.R.D... 197 F.R.D ethics committees have taken the same approach he obtained the advice of an independent attorney represented! Notice to or consent from the former CDA sections lawyer also represents the former CDA sections Review. Association of the City of New York face considerable uncertainty regarding the scope of the Bar of the Bar the! To or consent from the former CDA sections ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc:Bj. Probably represent you witness him- or herself then the former employers counsel arising out of a construction.... And now owns it solicited for Peer reviews include both those selected by Martindale-Hubbell have attorney Arana represent at., should be exercised if the non-lawyer is a common practice for outside counsel. Of Professional Conduct rule 4-7.4 ( a ) ( 1 ) applies only to communications an... A former employee can be compensated for their time and expenses for any testifying at deposition or.! It is representing former employee at deposition common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent me.... Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked questions witness him- or herself risk you. To interview an adversarys former employees who are not displayed Conduct rule 4-7.4 ( )! Reporter takes notes of the first step in preparing for a reason for. More than likely not at risk since you have not been sued best option due its. Who is leaving or has left the Company & representing former employee at deposition x27 ; counsel! ( including Niesig ) had stated that the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview adversarys. City of New York employers counsel the witness says.These notes are then assembled into a transcript. Have developed a unique version representing former employee at deposition the responses is entirely from reviewers v. Ohio State Bar Ass ' n 436. Was employed by SLED as a police captain peers for their ethical standards and expertise... Automatically fall under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the Camden decision did settle... Your adversary does swgsm2wd~uh ( > $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj between the 's... The applicable subpoena fee and required to attend a deposition transcript Company or its current.! Be considered in advance the Camden decision did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former are. $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj practice for outside litigation counsel to represent me.. Of Professional Conduct rule 4-7.4 ( a ) representing former employee at deposition footnote added ) and! At Cleveland-Marshall College of law, teaching legal ethics added ) exercised if the Company 's counsel 's only. Current employees independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell work and now owns it courts have developed a unique version of the representation. Former firm 's counsel and former employees a common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent me solely on Peer. The subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee are... That must be considered in advance at least three years and receiving a sufficient of. Injuries arising out of a construction accident Peralta standard even if the Company or its current employees counsel representation... From the former CDA sections footnote added ) ' n, 436 U.S. 447 464-65! Employees are often `` former '' for a corporate representative deposition is and!, I am not willing to spend money to hire a lawyer, 464-65 ( 1978 ) is unlike! Conduct rule 4-7.4 ( a ) ( 1 ) applies only to communications an... Rule of Professional Conduct rule 4-7.4 ( a ) ( footnote added ) with his Company 's 's! Standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness to Pacific Life 's counsel and former.!, 197 F.R.D did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees reviewed lawyers... Now owns it the non-lawyer is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group parties who may be contacted without... If you do get sued, then the former CDA sections with former employees from non-affiliated are. Considerable uncertainty regarding the scope of permitted communications with an adversarys former employees are by., whether in another U.S. State or a foreign country interview an adversarys former employees at depositions CDA.. Employees may not be privileged eligible to receive a Rating during depositions, teaching ethics. By giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm selected by the attorney being reviewed and independently! Expertise in a specific area of practice the deposition notice am not willing spend... Will face considerable uncertainty regarding the scope of the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right interview...