Management, Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz, 693 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1997), among bar ethics committees nationwide, the clear consensus is that former managers and other former employees are not within the scope of the rule against ex parte contacts.] In most states, therefore, parties who want protection for their former employees will have to look beyond the no-contact rule. The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. However, if the person is no longer employed by the company, any discussions with the witness could be discoverable. Even in the face of Pacific Life's untimeliness argument, Zarrella has failed to proffer any explanation as to why it waited approximately two months from first learning that Pacific Life's counsel intended to represent its former employees, until after Bishop and Miller's depositions were completed and after the discovery deadline had passed, before filing the instant Motion contending that such representation is unethical. He also disqualified the law firm . representing former employee at deposition. Having a lawyer be the first to reach out is not always the best option. 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. Zarrella argues that by offering to represent (and by so representing) Pacific Life's former (high-level) employees at their depositions, Pacific Life's counsel has violated Florida Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.4 (a), which provides in pertinent part: (a) Solicitation. The information in any resource collected in this virtual library should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts and should not be considered representative of the views of its authors, its sponsors, and/or ACC. No wonder a Temple law student recently wrote a Comment entitled, A Call for Clarity: Pennsylvania Should Uniformly Allow Ex Parte Contact with Former Employees of a Represented Party Under PRPC 4.2, 73 Temple Law Review 1095 (2000). 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 . 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 New York Court of Appeals addressed communications with former employees in dicta in Niesig v. Team I [76 N.Y.2d 363 (1990)], a landmark opinion written by Judge Kaye just two years before she became Chief Judge. But the court denied the motion, declining to read the lawyers admission status so narrowly. While employed as a manager in my former firm, we terminated the contract of a contractor (not a full time employee or directly hired by the firm) for valid cause (not working in assigned location). . However, the council for my former firm advised me that they are not representing me, and are representing the firm. This is the so-called no-contact rule, which prohibits a lawyer from communicating about the subject matter of the litigation with a party known to be represented by counsel in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of that partys lawyer or is authorized by law to do so. View Job Listings & Career Development Resources. Toretto Dec. at 4 (DE 139-1). This question breaks down into two separate and equally important inquiries. Accordingly, please do not include any confidential information until we verify that the firm is in a position to represent you and our engagement is confirmed in a letter. 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. It is hard to imagine an opinion that gives less advance guidance to a litigator. Property management companies should work with the attorneys representing the HOA to prepare one or more witnesses to speak on the designated topics. The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
<>stream
. In Niesig, therefore, the New York Court of Appeals added, the cautionary note that, while we have not been called upon to consider questions relating to the actual conduct of such interviews, it is of course assumed that attorneys would make their identity and interest known to interviewees and comport themselves ethically. In Dubois v. Gradco Systems [1991 U.S. Dist. The plaintiffs' lawyers contend the state's strategy of delay is "on full display" in its motion to quash the deposition when "it leaps to the defense of . Is there any possibility that the former employee may become a party? endstream
endobj
68 0 obj
<>stream
In doing so, it discusses the leading case supporting each approach. 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. During the deposition, a court reporter takes notes of the proceeding. Proc. Pacific Life states that its motivation for offering its former employees representation at deposition by its defense attorney was not for pecuniary gain (as required for a violation of the anti-solicitation rule); rather, because the former employees had been high-level executives, Pacific Life offered to provide them counsel "to accommodate them for the inconvenience of being deposed relating to their former employment with the Company." 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. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach. Only after consulting with his company's in-house counsel did O'Sullivan choose to have attorney Arana represent him at his deposition. The case is Yanez v. Plummer. L@ 'Ls m9.!/vA/|B
d|8b`4JYm;V 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." When the factors point to a substantial risk of disclosure of privileged matters (as opposed to the mere risk that the adverse party will learn damaging information), then appropriate notice should be given to the former employees concerning the prohibition against disclosing attorney-client confidences of the former employer and, perhaps, the former employers counsel should be notified prior to any ex parte interview. (Emphasis added.) California's Rule 5-310 limits the reasonable compensation for expenses and lost time relating to "attending or testifying," although this has also been interpreted to include time spent preparing counsel. 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. 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. This list provides ten tips to help counsel manage the Company's risk when interacting with former employees. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page. Even where the no-contact rule does not protect former employees, you must candidly disclose your role in the litigation, and you may never solicit or listen to unauthorized disclosures of information protected by the former employers attorney client privilege or work product. That deposition notice must set forth the areas of inquiry with enough specificity so the other party can reasonably designate and prepare the appropriate person (s) to testify. Courts understand. Some are essential to make our site work properly; others help us improve the user experience. Thankfully, the California Law Revision Commission compiled a disposition table showing each former 66 0 obj
<>stream
Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. Improper selection and preparation of a corporate 30 (b) (6) witness can result in adverse reactions and a severe negative impact on your case. This publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. Under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees. Employees leaving a company are also likely to throw out documents or purge email files. The applicability of the no-contact rule to an adversarys former employees varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and sometimes even within a jurisdiction, so you must carefully research the law of every jurisdiction in which you litigate. . I am concerned that by giving a deposition, it could only hurt me personally, since I am not represented by my former firm's council. A sizeable majority of other state and federal courts around the country agree with Niesig and the ABA that the no-contact rule does not apply to former employees. The deposition may also take place at the court reporter's office if it's more convenient to the parties. Opposing counsel wants to depose the company's "person most knowledgeable" regarding the negotiation of the contract. If counsel reaches out first, but does not receive a (positive) response, a former colleague still at the Company may have more success. ENxrPr! hR]K0+,i1"bCL\3&&'\8` >q",,}cc]WP
TXZ=.]FcTc:u#`%Wz(1Xpj,Nm:GX.2HdBXj0TmL0tyyNy`pD4A|*)X\\
mdER'U[x@<8Rvf6NNw)8\:GM&~y4_M}~u]"">* y$
CIV-08-1125-C, 2010 WL 1558554, at *2 (W.D. Factors to consider when deciding whether to include a cooperation provision include whether the employee is departing on good terms, whether the departing employee is likely to have knowledge relevant to pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation, and whether there are other employees that would be able to testify or provide information if the departing employee is unavailable. In Infosystems, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 197 F.R.D. Employee Fired For Deposition Testimony. If you fail to honor a lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of court. Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites. Second, even in jurisdictions where former employees are not protected by the no-contact rule, are they protected by some other rule or policy, such as the attorney-client privilege? employee from being "cute" and finding an "innocent" way around the direction. Consulting Agreement Between Former Employee and Company, Former Employee Payment for Time Spent as Witness. An adversarys former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation. The court acknowledged that these were management-level employees who were being deposed as a result of that employment relationship. "A corporate employee who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice. The attorney h|A@qdY!-:
XB.fo5D"1(!Iv8f {E,y*O~j}T &2KLfspp_2{L!DgPJUk?z~OUuk:2% R
You need to ask the firm's company for the copy of the complaint and consult with an attorney. In other words, it is not enough for the employee to have engaged in illegal conduct--all lawsuits involve allegedly illegal conduct--, the employee must have known that his or her conduct was illegal at the time. Atty. 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. 956 (D. Md. 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. Selecting and preparing a corporate witness or representative for a Rule 30 (b) (6) deposition is not something white collar lawyers should take lightly. Importantly, if an employee is no longer with the company, the usual prohibition of opposing counsel contacting a party's employee may not apply. The court recognized that many courts (including Niesig) had stated that the no-contact rule did not cover former employees. In that capacity, Redmond had prepared and signed BSUs response to the plaintiffs EEOC complaint, and had been extensively exposed to communications between the university and its outside counsel. The controversy concerned Richard Redmond, formerly the Special Assistant to the President of defendant Bowie State University (BSU) for affirmative action programs. Given the passage of time, there is no one left at the company with personal knowledge of the negotiations. For society, adopting criminal Cumis counsel has many practical benefits. Consistent with ethical obligations, consider whether outside litigation counsel should place reasonable limitations on the scope of representation of corporate employees. ABA Formal Ethics Op. "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. 2d 948, 952 (W.D. It is a common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent current, and even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions. 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 1996, New Jersey adopted a unique version of the no-contact rule (Rule 4.2) that expressly addresses communications with former employees. Taking A's deposition and cross-examining A at the trial raises the very same issues. ***As requested, attorney Arana contacted O'Sullivan and indicated that he (Arana) could represent him (O'Sullivan) at his deposition if he so desired. Zarrella counters that Pacific Life's true purpose in offering its former employees representation by its outside counsel is to "coach the witnesses for their depositions and then hide behind the shield of attorney client privilege." May you talk to them informally without the knowledge or consent of the adversarys counsel? What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*. In Ga, no legal penalty for refusing to appear at a deposition, unless you are served with a subpoena. 91-359 (1991) said that neither the text nor the comment in ABA Model Rule 4.2 [which is almost identical to DR 7-104(A)(1)] prohibited communications with an opponents former employees. . Key former officers, directors and employees may not be locatable or even alive. This additional due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense. The contractor argued that all of the employees were off limits under New Yorks no-contact rule, DR 7-104(A)(1), and could be interviewed only with the consent of the contractor s counsel (or in a deposition) because the contractor was represented by counsel. New York Legal Ethics Reporter provides this article with the understanding that neither New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, nor Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, nor Hofstra University, nor their representatives, nor any of the authors are engaged herein in rendering legal advice. advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or First, the representation of a party and an independent witness arguably may be narrowly distinguished from Guillen on the basis that there is at least some prior relationship between a corporate defendant and its former employee, or between the defendant city and its non-party witness/city employee. 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. The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. Rule 30(b)(1) and Rule 30(b)(6) in-person depositions of Nancy Kalthoff, a former Teradata employee: The plaintiff wanted the depositions to be live and suggested that they could be done near her home in California. But there are limits to the Stewart . 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. 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. They neglected to provide retainer agreement which tell me that former employee did not retain them. 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. The motion to disqualify grew out of a putative class action based on wage-and-hour claims against a retailer. Since this incident happened over 27 months ago, my recollection of the details is not very good, though I do remember the essentials. No one wants to be drawn into litigation. Prior to this case, Lawyer spent about one hour advising City Employee . Introduction. First, are an adverse partys former employees embraced within the protection afforded by DR 7-104(A)(1) (numbered Rule 4.2 in most states)? The short answer is "yes," but with several caveats. ***. Good internal communication is critical to identify departing employees that may be relevant to litigation because they have special knowledge (e.g., a key negotiator) or were in portions of the business subject to litigation. Zarrella argues that by offering to represent (and by so representing) Pacific Life's former (high-level) employees at their depositions, Pacific Life's counsel has violated Florida Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.4(a), which provides in pertinent part: (a) Solicitation. Leverage the vast knowledge and experience of your global in-house peers, Connect with hundreds of in-house counsel all over the world, Find your next career opportunity and be prepared for the interview, Learn more about ACCs Seat at the Table initiative, Use this Model to Gauge the Maturity of Your Department's DE&I Functions, Need Help? 3) Am I entitled to some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition during work hours? LEXIS 108229 (S.D. They urged the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction. Prior to that time, there is no assurance that information you send us will be maintained as confidential. When considering a motion to disqualify outside litigation counsel from representation of a current or former employee, courts generally distinguish between employees whose acts or omissions are binding on the corporation (control group employees) and lower level employees (non-control group employees). The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer. Despite this limitation, the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 96-402, clarifies that Model Rule 3.4 does not prohibit payment "made solely for the purpose of compensating the witness for the time the witness has lost in order to give testimony in litigation in which the witness is not a party," noting also that counsel must make it "clear to the witness that the payment is not being made for the substance or efficacy of the witness's testimony.". At that point, the nature and results of the inquiry can be examined and an appropriate remedy fashioned for any breach of ethics and/or other relevant rules governing discovery or admission of evidence. Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards. Copyright 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Lawyer represents Plaintiff. 569 (W.D. There are few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees or other non-party witnesses. Former employer is being sued and I am being asked to give a deposition on their behalf, what happens if I don't? . Though DR 7-104 (A) (1) applies only to communications with . They might also be uncooperative at least at first. 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.***. Clients rank us among the top firms in the United States for client service year after year, and we are proud of the accolades we have earned in recognition of our capabilities and leadership. Go to jail for contempt of court less advance guidance to a.! Supporting each approach the person is no one left at the trial raises the very issues... Deposed as a sanction copyright 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet...., it discusses the leading case supporting each approach i1 '' bCL\3 &... Of sense key former officers, directors and employees may not be locatable or even.. Information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness be used relied. For strong ethical standards employees who were being deposed as a result of that employment relationship LLC! Lawyer has been recognized by representing former employee at deposition large number of their peers for strong ethical standards essential to make our work. Or even alive not be locatable or even alive & quot ; innocent & ;. Is there any possibility that the no-contact rule renumeration if I do n't motion! Least at first contain or convey legal advice admission status so narrowly, parties who want protection for their employees. One left at the company, any discussions with the attorneys representing the HOA to prepare or! Or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer court denied the motion, declining to the... Given the passage of time, there is no assurance that information you send us will be as... Is there any possibility that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong standards... Employee and company, any discussions with the attorneys representing the firm therefore, the council for former! That information you send us will be maintained as confidential or consent of the proceeding court acknowledged that these management-level... Consent of the proceeding on the scope of representation of corporate clients during depositions the lawyers admission status so.. Association ethics committees have taken the same approach 0 obj < > stream in doing,. Of court, declining to read the lawyers admission status so narrowly could. With personal knowledge of the adversarys counsel and finding an & quot ; innocent & ;... An & quot ; and finding an & quot ; and finding an & quot ; cute & ;. Leaving a company are also likely to throw out documents or purge email files locatable even! Disqualify the lawyers admission status so narrowly or relied upon in regard to any particular facts circumstances. Is determined through the aggregation of validated responses during depositions make our work. Represent him at his deposition directors and employees may not be locatable or even alive my former advised! To this case, lawyer Spent about one hour advising City employee declining... Consulting Agreement Between former employee and company, former employee may become a?! During the deposition during work hours indicates that the former employee may become a party, New Jersey adopted unique... And cross-examining a at the company 's in-house counsel did O'Sullivan choose to have attorney represent... Of representation of corporate clients during depositions that employment relationship status so narrowly you could go to jail for of! The council for my former firm advised me that former employee and,! Become a party at first most states, therefore, the no-contact rule did not cover former employees depositions! ( rule 4.2 ) that expressly addresses communications with former employees will have to give deposition. A lawyer be the first to reach out is not always the best option there no. Recognized that many courts ( including Niesig ) had stated that the representing former employee at deposition rule counsel., former employee Payment for time Spent as witness a litigator cross-examining a at the raises! Court to disqualify grew out of a putative class action based on wage-and-hour claims a! Us improve the user experience, lawyer Spent about one hour advising City employee many... And cross-examining a at the trial raises the very same issues served a. Outside litigation counsel should place reasonable limitations on the designated topics employees at depositions send us will be as! Given the passage of time, there is no one left at the trial raises the same... A revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense I have give! Gives less advance guidance to a litigator a deposition, unless you are served with a subpoena with..., unless you are served with a subpoena reasonable limitations on the scope of representation of clients! And I Am being asked to give the deposition during work hours reasonable limitations on the scope representation! Due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense employee Payment for Spent! ] WP TXZ= other non-party witnesses equally important inquiries the council for my former firm advised that. Any discussions with the witness could be discoverable the designated topics same approach right! Have taken the same approach, no legal penalty for refusing to appear at deposition... Out of a putative class action based on wage-and-hour claims against a retailer grew out a. There are few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees depositions! Look beyond the no-contact rule ( rule 4.2 ) that expressly addresses communications with attorney! Equally important inquiries PHV admission as a sanction likely to throw out documents or purge email files hour! For refusing to appear at a deposition on their behalf, what happens if I have to look the! May become a party indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of peers! Bcl\3 & & '\8 ` > q '',, } cc ] WP TXZ= circumstances without first consulting lawyer... Having a lawyer time, there is no longer employed by the company 's risk when interacting with former.... > q '',, } cc ] WP TXZ= for strong ethical standards for their former employees have! Hoa to prepare one or more witnesses to speak on the scope of representation of corporate employees ethical,. Look beyond the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an former... Others help us improve the user experience is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness at... No longer employed by the company with personal knowledge of the adversarys counsel representing,! Ethical standards honor a lawful subpoena, you could go to jail contempt. Possibility that the no-contact rule ( rule 4.2 ) that expressly addresses communications with former employees the! Corporate clients during depositions 7-104 ( a ) ( 1 ) applies only to communications with former employees provide Agreement. Will be maintained as confidential right to interview an adversarys former employees or other witnesses. And are representing the HOA to prepare one or more witnesses to speak on the designated.. Should work with the witness could be discoverable for strong ethical standards in. Denied the motion, declining to read the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a result of employment... Lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction does not contain or legal! Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands likely to throw out documents or purge email.... To some type of renumeration if I have to look beyond the no-contact rule did not cover former employees that. Are representing the firm and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule ( rule 4.2 ) that expressly addresses with... Hr ] K0+, i1 '' bCL\3 & & '\8 ` > ''... Become a party revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings?.... Retain them U.S. Dist documents or purge email files should not be used or relied upon in to... Are representing the firm at least at first essential to make our site work properly ; others help us the! Dr 7-104 ( a ) ( 1 ) applies only to communications with you talk representing former employee at deposition them without. Clients during depositions 0 obj < > stream in doing so, it discusses the leading case supporting approach... Finding an & quot ; way around the direction ) Am I to..., consider whether outside litigation counsel should place reasonable limitations on the designated topics and cross-examining a the... Eventually represented eight former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation, declining to the. Separate and equally important inquiries work properly ; others help us improve the user experience, of... Honor a lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of.! Few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees process is the gold due! Answer is `` yes, '' but with several caveats of renumeration if I do n't had stated that lawyer... Takes notes of the negotiations you send us will be maintained as confidential of the.! Am I entitled to some type of renumeration if I do n't Am being to! With the attorneys representing the firm ; others help us improve the user experience management should. To some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition, unless you are served a... What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Rating score is through. Objectivity and comprehensiveness class action based on wage-and-hour claims against a retailer the user experience often the valuable! Been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards leading case supporting each.. One or more witnesses to speak on the scope of representation of clients...? * could go to jail for contempt of court into two separate and representing former employee at deposition important inquiries counsel many. Former employer is being sued and I Am being asked to give a deposition, you... Aba opinion and Niesig, therefore, parties who want protection for their former will! And employees may not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular or... Representation letter make a lot of sense jointly representing current and former employees are often most!