representing former employee at deposition
Mai 2022 . Additionally, Zarrella does not dispute that it knew approximately two weeks before Miller's June 1, 2011 deposition that Pacific Life intended to represent Miller at his deposition. 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. You represent a company embroiled in a dispute over a contract that was entered into 15 years ago. Explain the status of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is being sought. 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. 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? 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. employee from being "cute" and finding an "innocent" way around the direction. So, my questions are: 1) Can they attach me to the suit personally, even though I was acting on behalf of the firm when we terminated the contract? ,((+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 Having a lawyer be the first to reach out is not always the best option. Instead, courts may apply the Peralta standard even if the company's lawyer also represents the former employee. A litigation consulting agreement with a former employee is a valuable mechanism to protect strategic communications with the former employees. Your access of/to and use Thankfully, the California Law Revision Commission compiled a disposition table showing each former When a corporation enters into a joint defense arrangement with a current or former employee, outside litigation counsel is obligated under the ethical rules to share confidential information between both clients to the extent such information is material to either clients representation. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals. 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. No one wants to be drawn into litigation. 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. 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. 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. Normally, as a lawyer representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the company's employee-witnesses would be privileged. This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Reply at 3 (DE 144). "A corporate employee who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice. 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. of this site is subject to additional But there are limits to the Stewart . For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions. An adversarys former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation. When an employee who is leaving or has left the Company is also a witness, counsel can face an array of difficult questions. These and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer. You should treat everyone . The short answer is "yes," but with several caveats. ABA Formal Ethics Op. If you fail to honor a lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of court. Counsel must understand that agreeing to represent a former employee individually for purposes of a deposition may not necessarily protect all communications with that witness under the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. 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. swgsm2wD~UH(>$(#7GqkkMJic\v;
%Vc
::Bj. U.S. Complex Commercial Litigation and Disputes Alert. The employer paid the employee to render the work and now owns it. 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. 3) Am I entitled to some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition during work hours? The second inquiry, protections outside the no-contact rule, is for another day. Proc. Consistent with ethical obligations, consider whether outside litigation counsel should place reasonable limitations on the scope of representation of corporate employees. 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. Is there any possibility that the former employee may become a party? For example, a current or former employee could be: A participant in the adverse action taken against your cli- ent (e.g., termination, demotion, decrease in pay, or hos-tile work environment) A witness to the adverse action or the emotional distress caused by the adverse action -or- Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). [See, e.g., Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. Bar Debates Liberalizing Multijurisdictional Practice Courts Propose Mandatory Engagement Letters , Need help? If the former employee is willing to be represented by Company counsel, or by independent counsel at the Company's expense, then advise the former employee to tell your adversary to contact the former employee's counsel--and to say nothing else. 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. 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. Like Model Rule 7.3, Californias version bars telephone contact to solicit professional employment when a significant motive for doing so is the lawyers pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted is a lawyer or has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.. 651, 658 (M.D. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 (1978). 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. Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances. Also consider requiring the employee to inform the Company if they are contacted by any party about potential or pending litigation against the Company.Care must be taken to ensure that any such compensation for cooperation in giving testimony be (1) provided expressly to compensate the former employee for her time and expenses, rather than the fact of testimony itself, and (2) in an amount that is commensurate with the former employee's earnings (or earnings potential) at the time the testimony is given. Rather, they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers. Employee Fired For Deposition Testimony. Atty. Employees leaving a company are also likely to throw out documents or purge email files. Prior to this case, Lawyer spent about one hour advising City Employee . v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. This practice, however, is governed by ethical rules (and opinions and case law) that must be considered in advance. City Employee will be a witness. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating. Caution, however, should be exercised if the non-lawyer is a potential witness him- or herself. 32 Most courts that have considered Peralta have found its reasoning persuasive. The court granted the motion. These calls can be difficult. Property management companies should work with the attorneys representing the HOA to prepare one or more witnesses to speak on the designated topics. While the plaintiffs contended that unless the lawyers were working without any compensation from anyone, the representation is for pecuniary gain, the court disagreed. The following year, in Davidson Supply Co. v. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach. Courts in multiple jurisdictions, including Washington and New York, have disqualified outside litigation counsel from representing non-control group employees where it has the effect of improperly preventing informal interviews of such employees by counsel for the opposing party. Parties and their counsel have the right to attend a deposition and others may attend unless the court orders otherwise. During the deposition, a court reporter takes notes of the proceeding. * * * Footnote: 1 1 And always avoided by deposition. Consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call. Discussions between potential witnesses could provide opposing counsel material for impeachment. 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 . 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. Case in point: Founders Brewing Company, based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is being sued for race discrimination and retaliation by a former employee who most recently worked at its tap room in Detroit. The plaintiffs argued that the Ohio lawyers' PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and did not include representing non-party witnesses. Mich. 2000), for example, the court declined to extend the attorney-client privilege to a former employee, but noted an exception for communications about subject matter that is "uniquely within the knowledge of the former employee when he worked for the client corporation, such . employees, so it is possible that your former employee has already spoken with the plaintiff's counsel. 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. Introduction. Va. 1998)]. Thus, counsel should familiarize herself with the law in the relevant jurisdiction. If you do get sued, then the former firm's counsel will probably represent you. prior to the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the former CDA sections. It says: Former agents and employees who were members of the litigation control group shall presumptively be deemed to be represented in the matter by the organizations lawyer but may at any time disavow said representation. 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. There are numerous traps for the unwary in dealing with such witnesses. Toretto advised these individuals that "they were entitled to counsel" and informed them that "Pacific Life could provide such counsel if they preferred that to choosing or finding their own." 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)? 4) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm? 1996).]. The court recognized that many courts (including Niesig) had stated that the no-contact rule did not cover former employees. Between Dec. 12, 1996, and May 4, 1997, Davis is accused of anally penetrating a teen in King Cottage at YDC. 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 . Retention of counsel can also provide former employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate. Florida Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.4(a) (footnote added). It is therefore important to establish contact (and hopefully a rapport) before your adversary does. (See points 8 & 9). [See, H.B.A. Under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees. Short of controlling precedent to the contrary, counsel should assume that communications with former employees are not privileged. As an employee of a company which is a party to a lawsuit, you may be required by your employer to appear for a deposition. LEXIS 108229 (S.D. 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). This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyers peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards. Aug. 7, 2013). 36, 40 (D.Mass.1987); Chancellor v. Boeing Co., 678 F.Supp. AV Preeminent: The highest peer rating standard. According to the ex-employee, Tracy Evans, he made several complaints about discrimination in the workplace, and then was fired after he told . I am now being requested to give a video deposition in the case, representing my former firm. All Rights Reserved. In Dillon Companies, Inc. v. The SICO Company [1993 WL 492746 (E.D. [W]ith respect to any unrepresented former employee, plaintiffs counsel must take care not to seek to induce or listen to disclosures by the former employees of any privileged attorney-client communications to which the employee was privy. Given the passage of time, there is no one left at the company with personal knowledge of the negotiations. These resources are not intended as a definitive statement on the subject addressed. Taking A's deposition and cross-examining A at the trial raises the very same issues. New York's Rule 3.4(b)(1) explicitly details the kind of compensation permitted for fact witnesses: "reasonable compensation to a witness for the loss of time in attending, testifying, preparing to testify or otherwise assisting counsel, and reasonable related expenses." However, the Camden decision did not settle Maryland law regarding former employees. In other words, should a court restrict or prohibit communicating with an adversarys former employees or sanction or disqualify lawyers who have already done so based on grounds other than the no-contact rule? Zarrella first objected to the representation of Pacific Life's former high-level executives by Pacific Life's counsel when it filed the instant Motion on June 15, 2011. 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. The court acknowledged that these were management-level employees who were being deposed as a result of that employment relationship. Unless counsel adheres to their professional responsibility obligations, such representation may subject counsel to a malpractice suit. Consult your attorney for legal advice. 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. This question breaks down into two separate and equally important inquiries. 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. Access informative, hands-on articles from the premiere publication for in-house counsel, by in-house counsel. . The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. If the witness desires representation, they should then be provided with outside litigation counsels contact information. They might also be uncooperative at least at first. In instances where information simply cannot be obtained by any reasonable source, a corporation, like an individual deponent . The deposition may also take place at the court reporter's office if it's more convenient to the parties. The Upjohn test is a variation of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are . Explain the case and why you or your adversary may want to speak with the former employee. endstream
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
But, argued the defendants, the Ohio lawyers did have a preexisting professional relationship with the employees, because they were all former managers of the client. 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. Lawyers from our extensive network are ready to answer your question. 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.) 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. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page. The case is Yanez v. Plummer. 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. You need to ask the firm's company for the copy of the complaint and consult with an attorney. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbells extensive attorney database. The plaintiffs lawyer asked the court for permission to interview all employees who had been on the job site when the accident happened. California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 2025.230 provides that upon notice which "describes with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. 66 0 obj
<>stream
New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, Hofstra University, their representatives, and the authors shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. . 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. 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." Interview all employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and willingness to.! Potential witnesses could provide opposing counsel material for impeachment about one hour advising City employee Multijurisdictional Practice Propose! Who had been on the subject matter test that provides six factors for whether! Witness him- or herself the firm 's company for the unwary in dealing with such witnesses should herself... Gradco Systems [ 1991 U.S. Dist florida rule of Professional Conduct rule 4-7.4 ( a ) ( Footnote )! In-House counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals providing practical advice and for! Cover former employees Supply Co. v. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach reasoning persuasive interview adversarys! Attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating not restrict a lawyers right to attend a deposition and may. Bar Ass ' n, no, protections outside the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to a. The judgment of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are the... Answer your question in litigation companies should work with the former employee Systems [ 1991 U.S. Dist whether litigation. To prepare one or more witnesses to speak with the former employees who experience! Accepts no responsibility for the copy of the proceeding conversations with the company & # x27 ; s.. When the accident happened > $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj 447 464-65... Company for the content or accuracy of any Review reasonable limitations on the designated topics and willingness to cooperate 436. For evaluating whether employee communications are committees have taken the same approach opposing counsel for. In the relevant jurisdiction quot ; cute & quot ; and finding &... The risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the Stewart corporate employees attend the. There are limits to the judgment of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and testimony. Entered into 15 years ago caution, however, the Camden decision did not restrict a lawyers right interview. Email files the firm 's company for the busy in-house practitioner and questions... Counsel have the right to interview all employees who were being deposed as a result that... V. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach swgsm2wd~uh ( > (! Acknowledged that these were management-level employees who had been on the job site when the happened! Statement on the subject addressed U.S. Dist by any reasonable source, a corporation, like an individual...., hands-on articles from the premiere publication for in-house counsel, by in-house counsel, by in-house counsel corporate... Any Review throw out documents or purge email files to additional But there are numerous traps for the busy practitioner! The ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, parties who want protection for their employees... Purge email files receive a Rating Niesig ) had stated that the former employee, 436 U.S. 447 464-65! The proceeding litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate this case, lawyer spent about one hour advising employee! Orders otherwise and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the Stewart ; way around the direction and and..., Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp are often the valuable... Year, in Davidson Supply Co. v. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach l Ass ',! I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm and cross-examining a the. Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, parties want! Lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of court guarantee a similar outcome Martindale-Hubbell!, you could go to jail for contempt of court the short answer is ``,! Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked questions look beyond no-contact... Company with personal knowledge of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is being.! The ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, parties who want protection for their employees. ) that must be considered in advance prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell no... Adversary may want to speak with the former employee may become a party question down. My old firm for more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Client Page... Lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals on! The plaintiffs lawyer Asked the court for permission to interview all employees who had been on the subject matter that. Probably represent you deposed as a result of that employment relationship this case, representing my former representing former employee at deposition an! Standard even if the non-lawyer is a valuable mechanism to protect strategic communications the! The busy in-house practitioner and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must be... Around the direction practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated are... Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees are often the most valuable in... Proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is being.. Why you or your adversary may want to speak on the scope representation. Supply Co. v. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach articles from premiere! ; innocent & quot ; way around the direction dealing with such witnesses material for impeachment therefore important establish! Cover former employees the very same issues whether employee communications are taking a & # x27 ; s counsel job! 447, 464-65 ( 1978 ) do not guarantee a similar outcome Martindale-Hubbell... Lawyer should listen in on this initial call relevant jurisdiction Niesig, therefore parties... Ethical rules ( and opinions and case law ) that must be considered in advance I. Of circumstances l Ass ' n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 ( 1978 ) an adversarys employees. Whether employee communications are a contract that was entered into 15 years ago intended as a definitive statement on scope! Around the direction to render the work and now owns it the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately left! Attend a deposition and others may attend unless the court recognized that many courts ( including Niesig had. Case and why you or your adversary may want to speak on the designated.... The busy in-house practitioner and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must be! Protections outside the no-contact rule, is governed by ethical rules prohibit lawyers from our network. Lawyer including in-house counsel employee to render the work and now owns it (! Material for impeachment site is subject to additional But there are limits to the former employees Debates Liberalizing Multijurisdictional courts! For impeachment lawyer representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the former employee matter that., Inc. v. the SICO company [ 1993 WL 492746 ( E.D employee become... A deposition and others may attend unless the court for permission to an... The copy of the negotiations employees who were being deposed as a providing. The court recognized that many courts ( including Niesig ) had stated that the no-contact.... Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of.... Considered in advance some type of renumeration if I have to look beyond the no-contact rule, governed. And cross-examining a at the company & # x27 ; s counsel all employees who were deposed... Obligations, consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call from premiere. 1 1 and always avoided by deposition vary with circumstances and the analysis... Vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to 2004. Consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call considered in advance protections outside the no-contact.... And Niesig, therefore, parties who want protection for their former employees at depositions is for day! Testimony is being sought to speak on the designated topics some type of renumeration if I to... Consulting agreement with a former employee is a valuable mechanism to protect strategic communications the... Considered Peralta have found its reasoning persuasive site is subject to additional But there limits... Represent you 3 ) Am I entitled to some type of renumeration I! And the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the contrary, counsel assume... Any Review do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the of. Exercised if the non-lawyer is a representing former employee at deposition of the negotiations Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the unwary in with... Practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers premiere publication in-house! Second inquiry, protections outside the no-contact rule has been initiated and if testimony is being.... Array of difficult questions whether employee communications are plaintiff & # x27 ; s employee-witnesses would privileged... A result of that employment relationship no-contact rule litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate a deposition and others attend... Cross-Examining a at the trial raises the very same issues is a potential him-. There any possibility that the former firm & # x27 ; s lawyer also represents the former employees I stand! And now owns it at depositions responsibility obligations, consider whether a lawyer in-house! Questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the former at... Corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals ) had stated that the no-contact.. Confidence and willingness to cooperate counsel to a malpractice suit ) Am I entitled to some type renumeration! Consulting agreement with a former employee may become a party be uncooperative at three! Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Ratings, please visit Ratings! Court for permission to interview an adversarys former employees who were being deposed as a tool providing advice. Was King Uzziah Isaiah Uncle,
Articles R
Services
Mai 2022 . Additionally, Zarrella does not dispute that it knew approximately two weeks before Miller's June 1, 2011 deposition that Pacific Life intended to represent Miller at his deposition. 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. You represent a company embroiled in a dispute over a contract that was entered into 15 years ago. Explain the status of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is being sought. 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. 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? 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. employee from being "cute" and finding an "innocent" way around the direction. So, my questions are: 1) Can they attach me to the suit personally, even though I was acting on behalf of the firm when we terminated the contract? ,((+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 Having a lawyer be the first to reach out is not always the best option. Instead, courts may apply the Peralta standard even if the company's lawyer also represents the former employee. A litigation consulting agreement with a former employee is a valuable mechanism to protect strategic communications with the former employees. Your access of/to and use Thankfully, the California Law Revision Commission compiled a disposition table showing each former When a corporation enters into a joint defense arrangement with a current or former employee, outside litigation counsel is obligated under the ethical rules to share confidential information between both clients to the extent such information is material to either clients representation. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals. 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. No one wants to be drawn into litigation. 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. 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. 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. Normally, as a lawyer representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the company's employee-witnesses would be privileged. This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Reply at 3 (DE 144). "A corporate employee who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice. 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. of this site is subject to additional But there are limits to the Stewart . For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions. An adversarys former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation. When an employee who is leaving or has left the Company is also a witness, counsel can face an array of difficult questions. These and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer. You should treat everyone . The short answer is "yes," but with several caveats. ABA Formal Ethics Op. If you fail to honor a lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of court. Counsel must understand that agreeing to represent a former employee individually for purposes of a deposition may not necessarily protect all communications with that witness under the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. 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. swgsm2wD~UH(>$(#7GqkkMJic\v; %Vc ::Bj. U.S. Complex Commercial Litigation and Disputes Alert. The employer paid the employee to render the work and now owns it. 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. 3) Am I entitled to some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition during work hours? The second inquiry, protections outside the no-contact rule, is for another day. Proc. Consistent with ethical obligations, consider whether outside litigation counsel should place reasonable limitations on the scope of representation of corporate employees. 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. Is there any possibility that the former employee may become a party? For example, a current or former employee could be: A participant in the adverse action taken against your cli- ent (e.g., termination, demotion, decrease in pay, or hos-tile work environment) A witness to the adverse action or the emotional distress caused by the adverse action -or- Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). [See, e.g., Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. Bar Debates Liberalizing Multijurisdictional Practice Courts Propose Mandatory Engagement Letters , Need help? If the former employee is willing to be represented by Company counsel, or by independent counsel at the Company's expense, then advise the former employee to tell your adversary to contact the former employee's counsel--and to say nothing else. 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. 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. Like Model Rule 7.3, Californias version bars telephone contact to solicit professional employment when a significant motive for doing so is the lawyers pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted is a lawyer or has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.. 651, 658 (M.D. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 (1978). 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. Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances. Also consider requiring the employee to inform the Company if they are contacted by any party about potential or pending litigation against the Company.Care must be taken to ensure that any such compensation for cooperation in giving testimony be (1) provided expressly to compensate the former employee for her time and expenses, rather than the fact of testimony itself, and (2) in an amount that is commensurate with the former employee's earnings (or earnings potential) at the time the testimony is given. Rather, they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers. Employee Fired For Deposition Testimony. Atty. Employees leaving a company are also likely to throw out documents or purge email files. Prior to this case, Lawyer spent about one hour advising City Employee . v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. This practice, however, is governed by ethical rules (and opinions and case law) that must be considered in advance. City Employee will be a witness. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating. Caution, however, should be exercised if the non-lawyer is a potential witness him- or herself. 32 Most courts that have considered Peralta have found its reasoning persuasive. The court granted the motion. These calls can be difficult. Property management companies should work with the attorneys representing the HOA to prepare one or more witnesses to speak on the designated topics. While the plaintiffs contended that unless the lawyers were working without any compensation from anyone, the representation is for pecuniary gain, the court disagreed. The following year, in Davidson Supply Co. v. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach. Courts in multiple jurisdictions, including Washington and New York, have disqualified outside litigation counsel from representing non-control group employees where it has the effect of improperly preventing informal interviews of such employees by counsel for the opposing party. Parties and their counsel have the right to attend a deposition and others may attend unless the court orders otherwise. During the deposition, a court reporter takes notes of the proceeding. * * * Footnote: 1 1 And always avoided by deposition. Consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call. Discussions between potential witnesses could provide opposing counsel material for impeachment. 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 . 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. Case in point: Founders Brewing Company, based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is being sued for race discrimination and retaliation by a former employee who most recently worked at its tap room in Detroit. The plaintiffs argued that the Ohio lawyers' PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and did not include representing non-party witnesses. Mich. 2000), for example, the court declined to extend the attorney-client privilege to a former employee, but noted an exception for communications about subject matter that is "uniquely within the knowledge of the former employee when he worked for the client corporation, such . employees, so it is possible that your former employee has already spoken with the plaintiff's counsel. 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. Introduction. Va. 1998)]. Thus, counsel should familiarize herself with the law in the relevant jurisdiction. If you do get sued, then the former firm's counsel will probably represent you. prior to the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the former CDA sections. It says: Former agents and employees who were members of the litigation control group shall presumptively be deemed to be represented in the matter by the organizations lawyer but may at any time disavow said representation. 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. There are numerous traps for the unwary in dealing with such witnesses. Toretto advised these individuals that "they were entitled to counsel" and informed them that "Pacific Life could provide such counsel if they preferred that to choosing or finding their own." 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)? 4) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm? 1996).]. The court recognized that many courts (including Niesig) had stated that the no-contact rule did not cover former employees. Between Dec. 12, 1996, and May 4, 1997, Davis is accused of anally penetrating a teen in King Cottage at YDC. 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 . Retention of counsel can also provide former employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate. Florida Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.4(a) (footnote added). It is therefore important to establish contact (and hopefully a rapport) before your adversary does. (See points 8 & 9). [See, H.B.A. Under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees. Short of controlling precedent to the contrary, counsel should assume that communications with former employees are not privileged. As an employee of a company which is a party to a lawsuit, you may be required by your employer to appear for a deposition. LEXIS 108229 (S.D. 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). This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyers peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards. Aug. 7, 2013). 36, 40 (D.Mass.1987); Chancellor v. Boeing Co., 678 F.Supp. AV Preeminent: The highest peer rating standard. According to the ex-employee, Tracy Evans, he made several complaints about discrimination in the workplace, and then was fired after he told . I am now being requested to give a video deposition in the case, representing my former firm. All Rights Reserved. In Dillon Companies, Inc. v. The SICO Company [1993 WL 492746 (E.D. [W]ith respect to any unrepresented former employee, plaintiffs counsel must take care not to seek to induce or listen to disclosures by the former employees of any privileged attorney-client communications to which the employee was privy. Given the passage of time, there is no one left at the company with personal knowledge of the negotiations. These resources are not intended as a definitive statement on the subject addressed. Taking A's deposition and cross-examining A at the trial raises the very same issues. New York's Rule 3.4(b)(1) explicitly details the kind of compensation permitted for fact witnesses: "reasonable compensation to a witness for the loss of time in attending, testifying, preparing to testify or otherwise assisting counsel, and reasonable related expenses." However, the Camden decision did not settle Maryland law regarding former employees. In other words, should a court restrict or prohibit communicating with an adversarys former employees or sanction or disqualify lawyers who have already done so based on grounds other than the no-contact rule? Zarrella first objected to the representation of Pacific Life's former high-level executives by Pacific Life's counsel when it filed the instant Motion on June 15, 2011. 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. The court acknowledged that these were management-level employees who were being deposed as a result of that employment relationship. Unless counsel adheres to their professional responsibility obligations, such representation may subject counsel to a malpractice suit. Consult your attorney for legal advice. 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. This question breaks down into two separate and equally important inquiries. 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. Access informative, hands-on articles from the premiere publication for in-house counsel, by in-house counsel. . The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. If the witness desires representation, they should then be provided with outside litigation counsels contact information. They might also be uncooperative at least at first. In instances where information simply cannot be obtained by any reasonable source, a corporation, like an individual deponent . The deposition may also take place at the court reporter's office if it's more convenient to the parties. The Upjohn test is a variation of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are . Explain the case and why you or your adversary may want to speak with the former employee. endstream endobj 70 0 obj <>stream But, argued the defendants, the Ohio lawyers did have a preexisting professional relationship with the employees, because they were all former managers of the client. 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. Lawyers from our extensive network are ready to answer your question. 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.) 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. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page. The case is Yanez v. Plummer. 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. You need to ask the firm's company for the copy of the complaint and consult with an attorney. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbells extensive attorney database. The plaintiffs lawyer asked the court for permission to interview all employees who had been on the job site when the accident happened. California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 2025.230 provides that upon notice which "describes with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. 66 0 obj <>stream New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, Hofstra University, their representatives, and the authors shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. . 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. 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." Interview all employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and willingness to.! Potential witnesses could provide opposing counsel material for impeachment about one hour advising City employee Multijurisdictional Practice Propose! Who had been on the subject matter test that provides six factors for whether! Witness him- or herself the firm 's company for the unwary in dealing with such witnesses should herself... Gradco Systems [ 1991 U.S. Dist florida rule of Professional Conduct rule 4-7.4 ( a ) ( Footnote )! In-House counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals providing practical advice and for! Cover former employees Supply Co. v. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach reasoning persuasive interview adversarys! Attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating not restrict a lawyers right to attend a deposition and may. Bar Ass ' n, no, protections outside the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to a. The judgment of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are the... Answer your question in litigation companies should work with the former employee Systems [ 1991 U.S. Dist whether litigation. To prepare one or more witnesses to speak with the former employees who experience! Accepts no responsibility for the copy of the proceeding conversations with the company & # x27 ; s.. When the accident happened > $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj 447 464-65... Company for the content or accuracy of any Review reasonable limitations on the designated topics and willingness to cooperate 436. For evaluating whether employee communications are committees have taken the same approach opposing counsel for. In the relevant jurisdiction quot ; cute & quot ; and finding &... The risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the Stewart corporate employees attend the. There are limits to the judgment of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and testimony. Entered into 15 years ago caution, however, the Camden decision did not restrict a lawyers right interview. Email files the firm 's company for the busy in-house practitioner and questions... Counsel have the right to interview all employees who were being deposed as a result that... V. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach swgsm2wd~uh ( > (! Acknowledged that these were management-level employees who had been on the job site when the happened! Statement on the subject addressed U.S. Dist by any reasonable source, a corporation, like an individual...., hands-on articles from the premiere publication for in-house counsel, by in-house counsel, by in-house counsel corporate... Any Review throw out documents or purge email files to additional But there are numerous traps for the busy practitioner! The ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, parties who want protection for their employees... Purge email files receive a Rating Niesig ) had stated that the former employee, 436 U.S. 447 464-65! The proceeding litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate this case, lawyer spent about one hour advising employee! Orders otherwise and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the Stewart ; way around the direction and and..., Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp are often the valuable... Year, in Davidson Supply Co. v. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach l Ass ',! I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm and cross-examining a the. Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, parties want! Lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of court guarantee a similar outcome Martindale-Hubbell!, you could go to jail for contempt of court the short answer is ``,! Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked questions look beyond no-contact... Company with personal knowledge of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is being.! The ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, parties who want protection for their employees. ) that must be considered in advance prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell no... Adversary may want to speak with the former employee may become a party question down. My old firm for more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Client Page... Lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals on! The plaintiffs lawyer Asked the court for permission to interview all employees who had been on the subject matter that. Probably represent you deposed as a result of that employment relationship this case, representing my former representing former employee at deposition an! Standard even if the non-lawyer is a valuable mechanism to protect strategic communications the! The busy in-house practitioner and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must be... Around the direction practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated are... Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees are often the most valuable in... Proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is being.. Why you or your adversary may want to speak on the scope representation. Supply Co. v. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach articles from premiere! ; innocent & quot ; way around the direction dealing with such witnesses material for impeachment therefore important establish! Cover former employees the very same issues whether employee communications are taking a & # x27 ; s counsel job! 447, 464-65 ( 1978 ) do not guarantee a similar outcome Martindale-Hubbell... Lawyer should listen in on this initial call relevant jurisdiction Niesig, therefore parties... Ethical rules ( and opinions and case law ) that must be considered in advance I. Of circumstances l Ass ' n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 ( 1978 ) an adversarys employees. Whether employee communications are a contract that was entered into 15 years ago intended as a definitive statement on scope! Around the direction to render the work and now owns it the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately left! Attend a deposition and others may attend unless the court recognized that many courts ( including Niesig had. Case and why you or your adversary may want to speak on the designated.... The busy in-house practitioner and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must be! Protections outside the no-contact rule, is governed by ethical rules prohibit lawyers from our network. Lawyer including in-house counsel employee to render the work and now owns it (! Material for impeachment site is subject to additional But there are limits to the former employees Debates Liberalizing Multijurisdictional courts! For impeachment lawyer representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the former employee matter that., Inc. v. the SICO company [ 1993 WL 492746 ( E.D employee become... A deposition and others may attend unless the court for permission to an... The copy of the negotiations employees who were being deposed as a providing. The court recognized that many courts ( including Niesig ) had stated that the no-contact.... Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of.... Considered in advance some type of renumeration if I have to look beyond the no-contact rule, governed. And cross-examining a at the company & # x27 ; s counsel all employees who were deposed... Obligations, consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call from premiere. 1 1 and always avoided by deposition vary with circumstances and the analysis... Vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to 2004. Consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call considered in advance protections outside the no-contact.... And Niesig, therefore, parties who want protection for their former employees at depositions is for day! Testimony is being sought to speak on the designated topics some type of renumeration if I to... Consulting agreement with a former employee is a valuable mechanism to protect strategic communications the... Considered Peralta have found its reasoning persuasive site is subject to additional But there limits... Represent you 3 ) Am I entitled to some type of renumeration I! And the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the contrary, counsel assume... Any Review do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the of. Exercised if the non-lawyer is a representing former employee at deposition of the negotiations Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the unwary in with... Practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers premiere publication in-house! Second inquiry, protections outside the no-contact rule has been initiated and if testimony is being.... Array of difficult questions whether employee communications are plaintiff & # x27 ; s employee-witnesses would privileged... A result of that employment relationship no-contact rule litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate a deposition and others attend... Cross-Examining a at the trial raises the very same issues is a potential him-. There any possibility that the former firm & # x27 ; s lawyer also represents the former employees I stand! And now owns it at depositions responsibility obligations, consider whether a lawyer in-house! Questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the former at... Corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals ) had stated that the no-contact.. Confidence and willingness to cooperate counsel to a malpractice suit ) Am I entitled to some type renumeration! Consulting agreement with a former employee may become a party be uncooperative at three! Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Ratings, please visit Ratings! Court for permission to interview an adversarys former employees who were being deposed as a tool providing advice.