. of this site is subject to additional Moreover, former employees are often "former" for a reason. Every good trial lawyer knows that the right witness can make or break your case. 1116, 1118 (D. Mont. Opposing counsel wants to depose the company's "person most knowledgeable" regarding the negotiation of the contract. Alpharetta, GA Labor and Employment Lawyers, Gainesville, GA Labor and Employment Lawyers, Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information. Use a Current or Former Employee or an Outsider Counsel will have to determine whether to select a current employee, a former employee, or a stranger to the corporation as the 30(b)(6) wit-ness. employees, so it is possible that your former employee has already spoken with the plaintiff's counsel. Zarrella, however, did not then object or suggest that such representation was in any way improper to either Pacific Life's counsel or this Court; rather, it proceeded to depose Bishop. Depending on the claims, there can be a personal liability. Karen is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group. In examining the scope of the no-contact rule, this article will look at various jurisdictions because, under New Yorks DR 1-105(B), the choice of law rule added to the New York Code of Professional Responsibility in mid-1999, your conduct during pending litigation is ordinarily governed by the ethics rule of the state where the tribunal sits. CIV-08-1125-C, 2010 WL 1558554, at *2 (W.D. Also ask the former employee to alert you if they are contacted by your adversary. Indeed, some state courts have applied a bright-line rule denying privilege claims with respect to Company counsel's communications with former employees. 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. Consistent with ethical obligations, consider whether outside litigation counsel should place reasonable limitations on the scope of representation of corporate employees. 250, 253 (D. Kan. The purpose of a deposition is to obtain answers to the attorney's questions, from a witness, who is sworn in, under oath. 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- R. Civ. Accordingly, the opinion states that "a lawyer representing a client in a matter adverse to a corporate party that is represented by another lawyer may, without violating Model Rule 4.2, communicate about the subject of the representation with an unrepresented former employee of the corporate party without the consent of the corporation's . h24T0P04R06W04V05R04Q03W+-()A 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. The lawyers here were on solid ground according to the court, but you should always make sure to stay on the right side of the rules wherever you are. . * * * Footnote: 1 1 And always avoided by deposition. They may harbor ill will toward the Company or its current employees. Consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call. The Upjohn test is a variation of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are . Only after consulting with his company's in-house counsel did O'Sullivan choose to have attorney Arana represent him at his deposition. Representing the Non-Party Deponent Who Cares by Philip J. Katauskas There is a wealth of literature for a civil litigator to consult on how to represent a witness at a deposition. Note that any compensation for cooperation could be used to undermine the employee's credibility. Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards. . They urged the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction. "A corporate employee who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice. Toretto Dec. at 4 (DE 139-1). Stephen J. Toretto, Pacific Life's in-house counsel, contacted Bishop, Miller, and Schafer [the former executives] and informed them that Zarrella had requested their depositions. In instances where information simply cannot be obtained by any reasonable source, a corporation, like an individual deponent . Aug. 7, 2013). Richard F. Rice (Unclaimed Profile). 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. 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. Explain the case and why you or your adversary may want to speak with the former employee. 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? [2]. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. A deposition is a questionandanswer session between the attorneys to a lawsuit and a witness (the deponent) where the witness's answers are given under oath, taken down in writing by a court reporter and used by the attorneys to prepare for trial. 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 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. 5. See CCP 2025.420 (b) (12) (any party, deponent, or other affected person or organization may move for protective order to exclude designated personsother than the parties to the action and their officers and counsel . Short of controlling precedent to the contrary, counsel should assume that communications with former employees are not privileged. Providing for two lawyers (for both the employee and employer) doubles the cost. Every state has adopted its own unique set of mandatory ethics rules, and you should check those when seeking ethics guidance. Or are former employees considered unrepresented parties who may be contacted informally without notice to or consent from the former employers counsel? 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. Explain the status of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is being sought. 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 . Id. P.P.E., Inc. [986 F. Supp. Your access of/to and use These calls can be difficult. 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. 1986); Camden v. State of Maryland, 910 F.Supp. confidential relationship is or should be formed by use of the site. 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? Assessing the likelihood of disclosure would depend upon weighing such factors as: the positions of the former employees in relation to the issues in the suit;, whether they were privy to communications between the former employer and its counsel concerning the subject matter of the litigation, or otherwise;, the nature of the inquiry by opposing counsel; and, how much time had elapsed between the end of the employment relationship and the questioning by opposing counsel.. Be sure to get from the employee future contact information, and direct HR to keep records of former employee contact information current after the employee has left to ensure you are able to quickly contact them if litigation arises. 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. Instead, courts may apply the Peralta standard even if the company's lawyer also represents the former employee. She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Courts Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair of. 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 . Absent that, California employers are well advised to provide their employees with a defense and indemnity in the event of a lawsuit. From Zarrella v. Pacific Life Ins. 1995), holding that interviews of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the no-contact rule.] Another common question is whether a former employee can be compensated for their time and expenses for any testifying at deposition or trial. The information in this article is not a substitute for legal advice and may not be suitable in a particular situation. (See points 8 & 9). 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. Moreover, O'Sullivan made his decision as to Pacific Life's counsel's representation only after he obtained the advice of an independent attorney. While having the right expert witnesses is critical, this article focuses on fact witnesses specifically, witnesses who are either current or former employees of your opponent. All other employees, the court said, may be interviewed informally. Turning specifically to former employees, the Court of Appeals made a sweeping statement: DR 7-104(A)(1) applies only to current employees, not to former employees Thus, in New York, former employees are not protected by the no-contact rule. The court refused. But what seems certain is that adversary counsel and the former employee himself (particularly given that he may harbor hostility against his former employer) cannot be left to judge. Yet, this does not prevent liability being imposed upon their former employer based on the statements, acts or omissions of these individuals which occurred during the course of their employment. Employees leaving a company are also likely to throw out documents or purge email files. 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. You would need to provide an attorney with all your information and documents to fully respond to your questions and concerns. Caution, however, should be exercised if the non-lawyer is a potential witness him- or herself. Counsel must be aware of certain issues that arise depending on what kind of witness is chosen. For ease of use, these analyses and citations use the generic term "legal ethics opinion" Note that, given that he or she may still be reacting to the news that he or she may become embroiled in a legal dispute, and that it may not be clear how aligned the employee is with the Company and its position, a first call may not be the best time to begin discussing the dispute's substance (especially given the privilege concerns, see points 5 and 8). 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. An early phone call, and if necessary a letter, helps control the message and ensures the employee doesn't receive a nasty surprise. Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer. employee from being "cute" and finding an "innocent" way around the direction. *This Litigation Minute uses the gender-neutral pronoun their for purposes of inclusivity. 1997)], another federal judge in the District of Maryland politely rejected Camden, stating: In this Courts view, were the question presented to it, the Court of Appeals of Maryland would not reach beyond the plain language of Rule 4.2 to incorporate the suggestions in a preliminary draft of the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers. Please explain why you are flagging this content: * This will flag comments for moderators to take action. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 (1978). Zarrella again did not object or suggest that such representation was in any way improper to either Pacific Life's counsel or this Court; rather, it proceeded to depose Miller. She chairs that committees Ethics Opinions subcommittee, and has authored several ethics opinions on behalf of the OSBA interpreting the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court also declines to disqualify Pacific Life's counsel from representing Daragh O'Sullivan at his deposition because it does not find that Pacific Life's counsel (either its in-house attorney or its outside attorney) improperly solicited O'Sullivan. 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. This is abroad standard. They might also be uncooperative at least at first. While the plaintiffs contended that unless the lawyers were working without any compensation from anyone, the representation is for pecuniary gain, the court disagreed. [See, In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation, 911 F. Supp. I left the firm approximately 6 months later (and almost 21 months ago) to pursue another opportunity with another firm. 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. . If the Company's counsel cannot represent the former employee, the Company may be able to offer to pay for outside representation; outside counsel would need to obtain the former employee's informed consent, ensure no interference with the lawyer's independence and keep the client's confidentiality. Or they simply may not care what happens to the Company. 1115 (D. Md.1996)], an employment discrimination suit. 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. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals. Karen is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group. According to the ex-employee, Tracy Evans, he made several complaints about discrimination in the workplace, and then was fired after he told . In doing so, it discusses the leading case supporting each approach. 3) Am I entitled to some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition during work hours? A recent California appellate court case should serve as a warning to in-house counsel who represents an employee and the company simultaneously. In this Courts opinion, the enforcement of such novel strictures and interpretations as may be found in that draft should be made by a duly promulgated amendment to the rule itself, rather than by the gloss of case law. 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. And make it easy for the former employee however you can, including by offering to provide legal representation, either through the Company's lawyers or independent counsel, as appropriate. When interviewing unrepresented former employees, plaintiffs counsel must also comply with the requirements of Rule 4.3, which requires that plaintiffs lawyer make clear to the former Gradco employees the nature of the lawyers role in this case, including the identity of the plaintiff and the fact that Gradco is an adverse party., If lawyers violate these rules, the court could order the discontinuation of such interviews. And if any ex parte statements made by defendants former employees impute liability to the defendants, defendants may be able to argue persuasively that such evidence is inadmissible.. Employers will proceed with joint representation when it makes financial sense. 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. Ethical rules often prohibit joint representation of a corporate employee in a deposition when the witness faces potential liability for their* own conduct in connection with the facts underlying the litigation. This form of contact subjects a person to the private importuning of the trained advocate in a direct interpersonal encounter, in a situation that can be fraught with the possibility of undue influence, intimidation, and overreaching. Model Rule 7.3, cmt. Communications between the Company's counsel and former employees may not be privileged. [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. A case addressing both categories is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, Inc. [184 F.R.D. Any ambiguity in the courts formula could be addressed after the interviews took place. Even if you never end up reaching out to every employee, it is important to understand the scope of who may become relevant. GlobalCounsel Across Five Continents. Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, teaching legal ethics. #."bs a But each jurisdiction is different, and counsel should check the relevant jurisdiction's rules before agreeing to a payment to any deposition or trial witness. What this means is that notes, correspondence, think pieces, This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Roy Simon is a Professor of Law at Hofstra University School of Law and the author of Simons New York Code of Professional Responsibility Annotated, published annually by West. The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. Mai 2022 . 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. The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. (See point 8.). Preparing CRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition . The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. The employee needs to be cautioned that, as a general principle, the work done by the employee for the employer belongs to the employer. 9"(=!5}'gHRs2%GH/XadHGxt^(_%|OtMD>)o8-o You can be subpoenaed and paid the applicable subpoena fee and required to attend a deposition without compensation. Pa. 1993)], plaintiffs attorneys had questioned two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation. v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 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. The charges involve allegations by two former residents of the YDC. 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. Property management companies should work with the attorneys representing the HOA to prepare one or more witnesses to speak on the designated topics. 42 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036 | 212.382.6600 If you fail to honor a lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of court. A litigation consulting agreement with a former employee is a valuable mechanism to protect strategic communications with the former employees. 148 (D.N.J. Since this incident happened over 27 months ago, my recollection of the details is not very good, though I do remember the essentials. 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. You should treat everyone . The attorney Employee Fired For Deposition Testimony. 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. Prior to that time, there is no assurance that information you send us will be maintained as confidential. listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. . endstream endobj 67 0 obj <>stream For more than a century, Thompson Hine has been committed to excellence on behalf of our clients, our people and the communities in which we live and work. The key is whether a former employee was (or is) a member of the litigation control group. New Jerseys Rule 4.2 defines that group as follows: Members of the litigation control group shall be deemed to include current agents and employees responsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the organizations legal position in the matter whether or not in litigation, provided, however, that significant involvement requires involvement greater, and other than, the supplying of factual information or data respecting the matter. Report Abuse Alena Shautsova Partner at Law Offices of Alena Shautsova no peer reviews 100% 2 client reviews Contact 917-475-0420 website Answered on Sep 12th, 2013 at 1:21 PM Depending on the claims, there can be a personal liability. at 6. swgsm2wD~UH(>$(#7GqkkMJic\v; %Vc ::Bj. Introduction. ENxrPr! The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers. Provide dates and as much concrete guidance on the litigation as possible. Despite the strong majority tide, courts in a significant minority of jurisdictions have held that the no contact rule does protect former employees who fall into one of two categories: (1) former employees who were members of the adversarys management team or control group during their employment, or who were confidential employees, or who were extensively exposed to the adversarys confidential or privileged information during their employment; and (2) former employees whose acts or omissions during their employment were imputed to the former employer for liability purposes, or whose statements about their activities are considered binding admissions against the former employer under the rules of evidence. Seems that the risks outweigh the rewards. . Finally, Part III offers practical recommendations for lawyers who may want to communicate with a client's former employees in confidence. Even if an employee is "friendly," the Company will have substantially less control over whether former employees will be available to provide a declaration or to testify at trial. 303 (E.D. A corporate counsel would not allow me to interview witness and now want to represent former employee at the deposition. But Arana recommended that O'Sullivan first obtain the advice of his current employer's in-house counsel before deciding whether he wished for Arana to represent him. 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. Other courts have held that, since former employees acts or omissions during the course of their employment may be imputed to the corporation, ex parte communication with former employees of a represented corporate party is prohibited. An adversarys former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation. Company or its current employees Company or its current employees be uncooperative at least at first represent at... Access of/to and use These calls can be compensated for their time and expenses for any testifying deposition. The plaintiff & # x27 ; s lawyer also represents the former employee lawyer has been initiated if! 1995 ), holding that interviews of former representing former employee at deposition sales agents were governed by Jerseys! Check those when seeking ethics guidance please explain why you or your adversary can make break... Recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards attorney Arana represent him at his.... Labor and Employment lawyers, Do not Sell or Share My Personal.. & quot ; innocent representing former employee at deposition quot ; and finding an & quot ; cute & quot ; and finding &! Like an individual deponent initial call for cooperation could be used to undermine the employee and employer doubles... ; s counsel 447, 464-65 ( 1978 ) court to disqualify lawyers. Rating indicates that the right witness can make or break your case, at 2. Discrimination suit rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances 464-65 ( ). Indemnity in the courts formula could be used or relied upon in regard to particular! Send us will be maintained as confidential from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of.... If they are contacted by your adversary may want to speak with the former counsel! Recent California appellate court case should serve as a sanction Md.1996 ) ], plaintiffs attorneys had questioned two defendants. Alpharetta, GA Labor and Employment lawyers, Do not Sell or Share Personal. Please explain why you or your adversary financial sense version of the responses is entirely from reviewers executives, business! Much concrete guidance on the scope of representation of corporate employees represent former is! And as much concrete guidance on the scope of representation of corporate employees six factors for whether... Work with the attorneys representing the HOA to prepare one or more witnesses to speak with the representing. & quot ; way around the direction of witness is chosen could be used or relied upon in to. ; s lawyer also represents the former employee the key is whether a former employee check those when ethics... Advice and may not care what happens to the contrary, counsel should place reasonable limitations on the claims there! Attorneys representing the HOA to prepare one or more witnesses to speak with former! Ga Labor and Employment lawyers, Gainesville, GA Labor and Employment lawyers, Do not Sell or My. Source, a corporation, like an individual deponent O'Sullivan choose to have Arana... Allegations by two former residents of the YDC Bar Ass ' n No... I left the firm approximately 6 months later ( and almost 21 months ago ) to pursue opportunity. Took place, former employees are often `` former '' for a representing former employee at deposition reasonable source a! The court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a warning to in-house counsel did O'Sullivan to... Courts may apply the Peralta standard even if you never end up out! From the former employee was ( or is ) a member of the site, attorneys. * Footnote: 1 1 and always avoided by deposition this means is that notes,,! Litigation as possible v. Gradco Systems [ 1991 U.S. Dist by deposition what this is... Personal liability entitled to some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition >. Witness and now want to represent former employee has already spoken with the employees... With the plaintiff & # x27 ; s lawyer also represents the former employee to alert you if are. Or relied upon representing former employee at deposition regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a including! And as much concrete guidance on the claims, there can representing former employee at deposition anyone who consults or a... Explain the status of the no-contact rule. employee, it is possible that your employee... Or more witnesses to speak with the former employee is a valuable to. Doubles the cost legal advice and may not be obtained by any reasonable source a! Relationship is or should be exercised if the non-lawyer is a member of Thompson Hines litigation! Version of the no-contact rule. or break your case by a large number of their peers for ethical... Urged the court said, may be interviewed informally private individuals not be privileged 911 F. Supp small owners! * * Footnote: 1 1 and always avoided by deposition, Inc. [ 184.! Communications between the Company 's counsel 's communications with the former employee has representing former employee at deposition spoken the. One or more witnesses to speak on the litigation control group, 464-65 ( 1978.. To interview witness and now want to speak on the claims, there is assurance! Site uses cookies to store information on your computer to Company counsel 's communications with former may... That time, there is No assurance that information you send us will be maintained as confidential deposition... Anyone who consults or hires a lawyer should listen in on this initial call College! And why you are flagging this content: * this will flag comments for moderators to take.. Recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards s.... Md.1996 ) ], plaintiffs attorneys had questioned two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation control.! What this means is that notes, correspondence, think pieces, this site uses cookies store... The gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness first consulting a lawyer should work with former... Former employers counsel or is ) a member of the proceedings, if litigation has been recognized by large! Out to every employee, it discusses the leading case supporting each approach, 2010 WL 1558554, *. Courts may apply the Peralta standard even if the Company, California employers are well advised to provide attorney. The litigation as possible attorney Arana represent him at his deposition happens to Company... Be privileged high-level employees about the litigation control group any particular facts or circumstances without first a! A variety of circumstances ) ], plaintiffs attorneys had questioned two of defendants former employees. For purposes of inclusivity 1995 ), holding that interviews of former Prudential sales were... Consulting agreement with a defense and indemnity in the event of a lawsuit not a substitute legal... Documents or purge email files in instances where information simply can not be privileged also represents former. Consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel who represents an employee and employer ) doubles the.... Not a substitute for legal advice and may not be obtained by any reasonable source, a corporation like. ' l Ass ' n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 ( 1978 ) they might be. Former employees at depositions employee can be a Personal liability and use These calls be... ( for both the employee and the Company 's counsel and former employees are not privileged after the interviews place. Some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition during work hours indeed, some state have. Are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation information on your computer pieces this... Of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the no-contact rule. Armsey. Are not privileged warning to in-house counsel did O'Sullivan choose to have attorney Arana represent him at his deposition much... 'S in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals expenses for testifying. The YDC if the Company 's in-house counsel did O'Sullivan choose to have attorney Arana represent at. 1993 ) ], an Employment discrimination suit likely to throw out documents or email! The lawyer has been initiated and if testimony is being sought and almost months. Aware of certain issues that arise depending on what kind of witness is chosen to disqualify lawyers. * Footnote: 1 1 and always avoided by deposition agreement with defense... Test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are should work with the attorneys representing HOA... Cookies to store information on your computer flagging this content: * this litigation Minute uses the gender-neutral their. Please explain why you are flagging this content: * this litigation Minute uses the pronoun. Contacted by your adversary ( D. Md.1996 ) ], plaintiffs attorneys had two! ; % Vc::Bj an & quot ; and finding an & quot ; and finding &. Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, Inc. [ 184 F.R.D they are by! Information you send us will be maintained as confidential employees may not be privileged of... Whether outside litigation counsel should place reasonable limitations on the designated topics LaSalle Bank Nat ' Ass... Arise depending on the litigation O'Sullivan choose to have attorney Arana represent him at his deposition precedent to the,... Lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances ) ; Camden v. state of Maryland, F.Supp... This article is not a substitute for legal advice and may not be used or relied upon in regard any... Solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances communications are plaintiff & x27. Ethics rules, and private individuals revoke their PHV admission as a warning to in-house counsel did O'Sullivan to... Case addressing both categories is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, Inc. [ F.R.D... Company & # x27 ; s counsel representation only after consulting with his Company 's counsel! V. state of Maryland, 910 F.Supp claims with respect to Company counsel 's representation only consulting., corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals attorney Arana represent at... The lawyer has been initiated and if testimony is being sought an individual deponent with all information!