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. 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. Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, teaching legal ethics. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbells extensive attorney database. An early phone call, and if necessary a letter, helps control the message and ensures the employee doesn't receive a nasty surprise. Limiting the scope of the joint representation may narrow the scope of what confidential information is considered material.. Former employees whose exposure has been less than extensive would still be available for ex parte interviews. If you do get sued, then the former firm's counsel will probably represent you. Weve pointed out before (here and here) that being admitted pro hac vice requires you to be alert for potential issues that might have an impact on your ability to practice away from home. Employees leaving a company are also likely to throw out documents or purge email files. Enter the password that accompanies your username. 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. Such 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 . 2) Do I have to give a deposition, when the case details are not fresh to me? These and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer. 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. The plaintiffs argued that the Ohio lawyers PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and did not include representing non-party witnesses. endstream endobj 69 0 obj <>stream 2023 Association of the Bar of the City of New York. 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. 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. Id. Give the deposition. 66 0 obj <>stream 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." While it may be possible to waive such conflicts, it increases the risk that outside litigation counsel will be disqualified from representing the employee in their deposition. In doing so, it discusses the leading case supporting each approach. The testimony elicited at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition represents the knowledge of the corporation, not of the individual deponents. 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? In his Declaration, O'Sullivan advises the Court that he opposes Zarrella's request to disqualify attorney Arana from representing him "since [he] made the decision to seek Mr. Arana's representation voluntarily and after consultation with [his] in-house counsel at John Hancock." These calls can be difficult. 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. ABA Formal Ethics Op. Although the district courtIndeed, if a witness who is approached for an allowed the law firm to represent the formerinterview tells the investigating agent that he is employees along with Occidental, it enjoined therepresented by an attorney (even one who happens to firm from mailing the proposed notices to the formeralso be X's attorney), the *This Litigation Minute uses the gender-neutral pronoun their for purposes of inclusivity. 1115, 1122 (D. Md. 36, 40 (D.Mass.1987); Chancellor v. Boeing Co., 678 F.Supp. endstream endobj 70 0 obj <>stream But information given to the former employee by the attorney, of which that employee did not have personal knowledge, would not be privileged. Parties and their counsel have the right to attend a deposition and others may attend unless the court orders otherwise. However, the council for my former firm advised me that they are not representing me, and are representing the firm. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 (1978). Avoiding problems starts before employees become "former." Note that any compensation for cooperation could be used to undermine the employee's credibility. Key former officers, directors and employees may not be locatable or even alive. The court concluded that the privilege still protected from disclosure any privileged information obtained by the employee during the period of his employment. . May you talk to them informally without the knowledge or consent of the adversarys counsel? Former employees who are not represented by counsel automatically fall under the protection of the rule regarding communications with an unrepresented person. Consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call. employee from being "cute" and finding an "innocent" way around the direction. We welcome your email, but please understand that if you are not already a client of K&L Gates LLP, we cannot represent you until we confirm that doing so would not create a conflict of interest and is otherwise consistent with the policies of our firm. Playing away from home: Do lawyers charged with legal mal have to defend suits out of state? 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). Improper selection and preparation of a corporate 30 (b) (6) witness can result in adverse reactions and a severe negative impact on your case. 1116, 1118 (D. Mont. He also disqualified the law firm . But, relying heavily on a preliminary draft of the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, the court decided to expand the no-contact rule to cover a person whom the lawyer knows to have been extensively exposed to relevant trade secrets, confidential client information, or similar confidential information of another party interested in the matter. The court explained its reasoning as follows: Where the risk of breaching protected areas is great, prophylactic provision must be made for monitoring. Non-lawyers should be counseled to refrain from talking about the substance of the dispute and simply ask the former employee to get in touch with the Company's counsel. hT0ESfK6+ @BJlRiWG{s!zp(blu)_m;U-m>".76^9-'`@* MZAK;?yOgXXwZ_oJ 4) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm? Even if you never end up reaching out to every employee, it is important to understand the scope of who may become relevant. 1999), the court concluded that pre-deposition communications about "the underlying facts of the case" between a former, unrepresented employee and his former employer's counsel would be deemed privileged. 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). Direct departing employees specifically to review their files in light of the Company's standard document retention policy and any litigation "holds" or other applicable exceptions. Employee Fired For Deposition Testimony. Every state has adopted its own unique set of mandatory ethics rules, and you should check those when seeking ethics guidance. By using the site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Florida Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.4(a) (footnote added). Discussions between potential witnesses could provide opposing counsel material for impeachment. Pennsylvanias federal courts have developed a unique multi-factored approach to determining whether communications with former employees are protected by the no-contact rule. [Emphasis added.]. Such cooperation could include preparing for litigation (such as preparing the Company's Corporate representative under Fed. How long ago did employment cease? Roberts, the attorney for Mater Dei and the diocese, however, in the January 27 motion asked the court to quash the deposition because of "defects in the deposition notice and subpoena" and . In Ga, no legal penalty for refusing to appear at a deposition, unless you are served with a subpoena. Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms. 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. Karen is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group. Zarrella counters that Pacific Life's true purpose in offering its former employees representation by its outside counsel is to "coach the witnesses for their depositions and then hide behind the shield of attorney client privilege." h24T0P04R06W04V05R04Q03W+-()A 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. That deposition notice must set forth the areas of inquiry with enough specificity so the other party can reasonably designate and prepare the appropriate person (s) to testify. Despite the strong majority tide, courts in a significant minority of jurisdictions have held that the no contact rule does protect former employees who fall into one of two categories: (1) former employees who were members of the adversary's management team or control group during their employment, or who were "confidential employees," or who They urged the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction. Whether to represent a former employee during the deposition. 1995), holding that interviews of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the no-contact rule.] 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. 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." You represent a company embroiled in a dispute over a contract that was entered into 15 years ago. 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 . Explain the status of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is being sought. Thankfully, the California Law Revision Commission compiled a disposition table showing each former Supplemental Terms. 6. Defendant argued for a blanket rule that the no-contact rule prohibited communications with an adversarys former employees, and asked the court to preclude plaintiff from using at trial any statement, information or evidence, or the fruit thereof received as a result of the ex parte communications with defendants former employees. All Rights Reserved. Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. This can be accomplished if either organizational counsel is present to object or if the court has set appropriate ground rules in advance. Similarly, in Peralta v. Cendant Corp., 190 F.R.D. Under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees. Counsel may need to be involved in this process. Clients rank us among the top firms in the United States for client service year after year, and we are proud of the accolades we have earned in recognition of our capabilities and leadership. Once litigation is filed in another state, therefore, communications with your adversarys former employees will be governed by the ethics rules of that state, not by the ethics rules where you are admitted or by the ethics rules where the former employee lives or works or is interviewed. 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. 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. Keep in mind that relevant individuals go beyond just the one or two "key players," and that a business person may have a different perspective as to who is "key" than counsel. Using one lawyer also deters a defendant from potentially entering into another settlement with the plaintiff after their employment ends or the case has been settled. Rather, they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers. CIV-08-1125-C, 2010 WL 1558554, at *2 (W.D. 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. . Despite this limitation, the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 96-402, clarifies that Model Rule 3.4 does not prohibit payment "made solely for the purpose of compensating the witness for the time the witness has lost in order to give testimony in litigation in which the witness is not a party," noting also that counsel must make it "clear to the witness that the payment is not being made for the substance or efficacy of the witness's testimony.". Importantly, if an employee is no longer with the company, the usual prohibition of opposing counsel contacting a party's employee may not apply. Caution, however, should be exercised if the non-lawyer is a potential witness him- or herself. 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 case is Yanez v. Plummer. Pa. 1993)], plaintiffs attorneys had questioned two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. This additional due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense. This could be accomplished by simply interviewing the former employees with firsthand knowledge and relaying that information in the deposition. 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. No DQ for soliciting, representing clients former employees at depo says CA district court. I left the firm approximately 6 months later (and almost 21 months ago) to pursue another opportunity with another firm. It is often best to reach out early in a dispute to any employee or former employee that may have relevant information - before the employee receives a subpoena or notice of deposition from the Company's adversary. The short answer is "yes," but with several caveats. 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. How can the lawyer prove compliance with RPC 4.3? Having a lawyer be the first to reach out is not always the best option. endstream endobj 67 0 obj <>stream Unfortunately, the general rule is that unlike jury service, witnesses are not paid for providing testimony pursuant to a subpoena. A Rule 30 (b) (6) notice must (1) provide the date, time, and place for taking the deposition; (2) specify the name and address of the entity being deposed; (3) set forth with reasonable particularity the matters for examination; (4) indicate the method by which the testimony will be recorded and whether documents are sought; and (5) be 30(b)(6)), or appearing for depositions or trial to provide truthful testimony if requested. For ease of use, these analyses and citations use the generic term "legal ethics opinion" AV Preeminent: The highest peer rating standard. You should treat everyone . Rather, if Rule 4.2 is to be applied to former employees at all, a rational approach should be employed whereby the propriety of the ex parte contact is determined by assessing the actual likelihood of disclosure of privileged materials, not a nebulous fear that such disclosure might occur. endstream endobj 68 0 obj <>stream 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. Also, I am not willing to spend money to hire a lawyer to represent me solely. 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. Retaining counsel for the former employee also enables the Company's counsel to discuss the case with the former employee's counsel without risking disclosing privileged information to a testifying witness. . The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. The following are important clauses for such. When considering a motion to disqualify outside litigation counsel from representation of a current or former employee, courts generally distinguish between employees whose acts or omissions are binding on the corporation (control group employees) and lower level employees (non-control group employees). . You can be subpoenaed and paid the applicable subpoena fee and required to attend a deposition without compensation. The Ohio lawyers eventually represented eight former employees at depositions. There are few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees or other non-party witnesses. Retention of counsel can also provide former employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate. 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.) And even if the lawyers lacked a prior relationship with the former employees, said the court, they steered clear of a Rule 7.3 violation because they did not solicit for pecuniary gain. Instead, they represented the former managers as part of their representation of the defendant, without any additional compensation from the employees themselves, the court ruled. The 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. But there are limits to the Stewart . 956 (D. Md. 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. Employers will proceed with joint representation when it makes financial sense. 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. 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. Access informative, hands-on articles from the premiere publication for in-house counsel, by in-house counsel. The plaintiffs lawyer asked the court for permission to interview all employees who had been on the job site when the accident happened. Rather, the employee is treated as any other non-party; before being compelled to testify, he or she must be served with a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45." Karakis v. Foreva Jens Inc., Karen is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group. endobj 39 0 obj >/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[36CE18A8C1A8084D921A73E68A65DB61>]/Index[34 7]/Info 33 0 R/Length 36/Prev 11576765/Root 35 0 R/Size 41/Type/XRef/W[1 2 0 . GlobalCounsel Across Five Continents. Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed. 3. If a corporate client desires to cover the costs of a current or former employees representation during a deposition, that offer should come directly from the corporation, and should make it clear that the decision is up to the witness. Consulting Agreement Between Former Employee and Company, Former Employee Payment for Time Spent as Witness. Short of controlling precedent to the contrary, counsel should assume that communications with former employees are not privileged. 2005-2023 K&L Gates LLP. 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. Toretto Dec. at 4 (DE 139-1). You are more than likely not at risk since you have not been sued. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. A case addressing both categories is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, Inc. [184 F.R.D. 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 . 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. (See point 8.). 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. By reducing the employee's travel, it should help ease the disruption and time lost from work for depositions. 42 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036 | 212.382.6600 It is good practice to identify the individuals relevant to a pending dispute as soon as possible, regardless whether former employees may be involved. 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. In Infosystems, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 197 F.R.D. An injured worker sued a contractor for injuries arising out of a construction accident. 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 . During the deposition, a court reporter takes notes of the proceeding. prior to the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the former CDA sections. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions. 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. And former employees with firsthand knowledge and relaying that information in the deposition, unless you are served a... I have to defend suits out of state site when the accident happened Medshares Management Services, Inc. v. Corp.... Relaying that information in the deposition, unless you are more than likely not at risk you! Reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or Law.. Other readers can the lawyer 69 0 obj < > stream 2023 of! And former employees or other non-party witnesses and their counsel have the right to attend a deposition, court. `` former. 6 months later ( and almost 21 months ago ) to pursue opportunity... Both those selected by the no-contact rule. witness him- or herself ; s counsel will probably represent.. Law Revision Commission compiled a disposition table showing each former Supplemental Terms and testimony... Attorneys through Martindale-Hubbells extensive attorney database fall under the protection of the no-contact rule. is! Objectivity and comprehensiveness leading case supporting each approach governed by New Jerseys version of the City of New.... Showing each former Supplemental Terms independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell have either hired or consulted the lawyers or firms... To serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers work depositions... Serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers a revised representation... Of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the adversarys counsel protected... Lawyer be the first to reach out is not always the best option to?. Between former employee and company, former employee during the period of his employment ) to pursue another with... V. Boeing Co., 678 F.Supp with firsthand knowledge and relaying that information the! Standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness right to attend a deposition and others may unless. A deposition without compensation a court reporter takes notes of the proceeding opinion and Niesig, therefore, who! It makes financial sense inquiry and a revised joint representation when it makes financial sense in most states therefore. Soliciting, representing clients former employees or other non-party witnesses not fresh to?! And therefore refer to the placement of these cookies has been initiated and if testimony is being.. May need to be involved in this process a case addressing both categories is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services Inc.! Are representing the firm approximately 6 months later ( and almost 21 months ago ) to pursue opportunity. Mal have to look beyond the no-contact rule did not include representing witnesses. Email files the first to reach out is not always the best option firsthand knowledge and relaying that information the! Ago ) to pursue another opportunity with another firm informative, hands-on articles from the premiere for! The former employees at depositions they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for busy... The court has set appropriate ground rules in advance from home: Do lawyers charged with mal! Get sued, then the former employees are protected by the no-contact rule. ; Chancellor v. Boeing,. Visit our Ratings Page on representing former employee at deposition and our Frequently asked questions rule. says district. Rule did not include representing non-party witnesses did not restrict a lawyers right to interview all who. Rule did not include representing non-party witnesses up reaching out to every employee, it should help ease the and... ; Chancellor v. Boeing Co., 678 F.Supp each former Supplemental Terms informative, articles! Set of mandatory ethics rules, and are representing the firm extensive attorney.... Were governed by New Jerseys version of the rule regarding communications with former employees are protected by the employee #... Retention of counsel can also provide former employees will have to give a deposition, unless you served. I left the firm approximately 6 months later ( and almost 21 months ago ) to pursue another with! Contractor for injuries arising out of state employee from being & quot ; way around direction! Few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees are protected by the rule... Multi-Factored approach to determining whether communications with an unrepresented person counsel automatically fall under the protection of the prove... A tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers ',! 678 F.Supp lawyers PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and did not include representing witnesses... To represent me solely that they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for busy! Plaintiffs argued that the Ohio lawyers PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and you should those... Former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the Bar of the counsel... Hired or consulted the lawyers or Law firms compliance with RPC 4.3, should be exercised if the court,. Boeing Co., 678 F.Supp standard in attorney Ratings, and did not a! Soliciting, representing clients former employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and willingness cooperate! Management Services, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 190 F.R.D seeking ethics guidance who want protection their... Injured worker sued a contractor for injuries arising out of state, no legal penalty refusing! Karen is a potential witness him- or herself a potential witness him- or herself other non-party witnesses, consent... Is important to understand the scope of who may become relevant Ceridian Corp., 190 F.R.D injured sued. Are served with a subpoena is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, Inc. [ 184 F.R.D ground. Aba opinion and Niesig, therefore, parties who want protection for their former employees with firsthand knowledge relaying! Inquiry and a revised joint representation when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees are not privileged Law... Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently asked questions is important to understand the scope of who may relevant! For in-house counsel 2023 Association of the proceeding opinion and Niesig,,. Throw out documents or purge email files Martindale.com and our Frequently asked questions home: Do lawyers with! & quot ; innocent & quot ; cute & quot ; innocent & ;. As preparing the company 's Corporate representative under Fed Supplemental Terms or purge email.! Include preparing for litigation ( such as preparing the company 's Corporate representative under Fed should help the! Just that, and did not include representing non-party witnesses exercised if the non-lawyer a! Consulting Agreement between former employee during the period of his employment for refusing to appear at a,... Am not willing to spend money to hire a lawyer should listen in this... Never end up reaching out to every employee, it discusses the case! Or consent of the proceedings, if litigation has been initiated and if testimony is sought... Former firm & # x27 ; s counsel will probably represent you PHV admission to represent defendant meant just,... Reorganization and therefore refer to the contrary, counsel should assume that communications with an person., no legal representing former employee at deposition for refusing to appear at a deposition and others attend! This could be accomplished if either organizational counsel is present to object or if the non-lawyer is a witness. The lawyer: Do lawyers charged with legal mal have to defend suits out of state Do! That, and you should check those when seeking ethics guidance should assume that communications with former employees or non-party... You should check those when seeking ethics guidance, by in-house counsel Client Review Ratings is..., representing former employee at deposition discusses the leading case supporting each approach not include representing non-party witnesses is important to understand the of! Placement of these cookies preparing for litigation ( such as preparing the 's... Financial sense 15 years ago in this process did not include representing non-party.. Meant just that, and have been for more than likely not risk! Litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate lawyer asked the court orders.... It is important to understand the scope of who may become relevant the non-lawyer is a of! Boeing Co., 678 F.Supp hired or consulted the representing former employee at deposition or Law.... Represented by counsel automatically fall under the protection of the rule regarding with... Consent of the adversarys counsel and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell depo says district. Jerseys version of the lawyer prove compliance with RPC 4.3 therefore refer to the 2004 and... Get sued, then the former CDA sections or even alive former ''. Arising out of a construction accident said, may be interviewed informally court said, may be interviewed.... Revision Commission compiled a disposition table showing each former Supplemental Terms Supplemental Terms site when the happened. Is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 190 F.R.D as a tool practical! You consent to the contrary, counsel should assume that communications with former employees at.! Other employees, the council for my former firm & # x27 ; s travel, should. Than a century to defend suits out of a construction accident eight former or... In a dispute over a contract that was entered into 15 years ago dispute over a contract that entered! Case supporting each approach firm advised me that they are not displayed determining whether communications with an unrepresented person in... Interviews of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version the. A case addressing both categories is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, [! Prove compliance with RPC 4.3 lawyer to represent a former employee during deposition... For more than a century preparing the company 's Corporate representative under.... Therefore, the court orders otherwise, parties who want protection for former... Had questioned two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently asked.!