Talking to Your Adversary in New Jersey and Pennsylvania Litigation:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Talking to Your Adversary in New Jersey and Pennsylvania Litigation:"

Transcription

1 Talking to Your Adversary in New Jersey and Pennsylvania Litigation: Can an Attorney Contact the Current or Former Employees of an Adversary by Melissa Bergman Squire June 2002 Copyright 2002 Dechert. All rights reserved. Materials have been abridged from laws, court decisions and administrative rulings and should not be considered as legal opinions on specific facts or as a substitute for legal counsel.

2 xc Talking to Your Adversary in New Jersey and Pennsylvania Litigation: Can an Attorney Contact the Current or Former Employees of an Adversary? BOSTON BRUSSELS FRANKFURT HARRISBURG HARTFORD LONDON LUXEMBOURG NEW YORK NEWPORT BEACH PARIS by Melissa Bergman Squire 1 New Jersey and Pennsylvania have taken very different approaches to the question of whether an attorney may contact the current or former employees of an adversary. Guided by the Report of Special Committee on RPC 4.2, 139 N.J.L.J (1995), and the incorporation of its recommendations by an Order of the New Jersey Supreme Court to amend the pertinent rules of professional conduct, both the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the New Jersey courts have developed a relatively consistent body of case law, adopting the litigation control group test for both current and former employees. Working without guidance from either the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, courts applying Pennsylvania law, on the other hand, have rejected a bright-line test, opting for an alter-ego or factual, case-by-case test that, practically speaking, often leaves attorneys in the dark. Ex Parte Communication With an Adversary s Employees in New Jersey PHILADELPHIA PRINCETON WASHINGTON The History of New Jersey s Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2, 4.3, and 1.13 Although the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct s version of Rule 4.2 with neither expansion nor modification in 1983, it declined to adopt the explanatory comments or American Bar Association commentary. See Andrews v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 191 F.R.D. 59, (D.N.J. 2000). Similarly, it adopted Model Rules 4.3 and 1.13 with little more explanation. See id. at This lack of guidance proved troublesome when courts were asked to apply the rule to corporations or other organizations. See id. at 70. Model Rule 4.2 prohibited an attorney from contacting a represented party, but failed to provide guidance on whether or to what extent former or current employees were considered represented parties. See id. 1. Special thanks are extended to Jennifer Kraft, a 2002 Dechert summer associate, for her assistance with the research and writing of this article. Copyright 2002 Dechert. All rights reserved. Materials have been abridged from laws, court decisions and administrative rulings and should not be considered as legal opinions on specific facts or as a substitute for legal counsel.

3 After the District Court of New Jersey s controversial decision in PSE & G v. Associated Electric & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd., 745 F. Supp (D.N.J. 1990), which articulated a bright-line test barring ex parte communications with all former and current employees, and the case law that followed, the New Jersey Supreme Court stepped in, establishing interim rules and a Special Committee on Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 (which also reviewed Rules 4.3 and 1.13). See Andrews, 191 F.R.D. at 71-72, 74. Upon the recommendations of the Special Committee, the New Jersey Supreme Court amended Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2, 4.3, and 1.13 in 1996, and the amended Rules became effective in September of the same year. See id. at 76. Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2, 4.3, and 1.13 Today The New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2, 4.3, and the relevant portions of 1.13, state, respectively: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, including members of an organization s litigation control group as defined by RPC 1.13, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer, or is authorized by law to do so, or unless the sole purpose of the communication is to ascertain whether the person is in fact represented. Reasonable diligence shall include, but not be limited to, a specific inquiry of the person as to whether that person is represented by counsel. Nothing in this rule shall, however, preclude a lawyer from counseling or representing a member or former member of an organization s litigation control group who seeks independent legal advice. N.J. R. P.C In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer s role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. If the person is a director, officer, employee, member, shareholder or other constituent of an organization concerned with the subject of the lawyer s representation but not a person defined by RPC 1.13(a), the lawyer shall also ascertain by reasonable diligence whether the person is actually represented by the organization s attorney pursuant to RPC 1.13(e) or who has a right to such representation on request, and, if the person is not so represented or entitled to representation, the lawyer shall make known to the Page 2 Dechert

4 person that insofar as the lawyer understands, the person is not being represented by the organization s attorney. N.J. R. P.C (a) A lawyer employed or retained to represent an organization represents the organization as distinct from its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents. For the purposes of RPC 4.2 and 4.3, however, the organization s lawyer shall be deemed to represent not only the organizational entity but also the members of its litigation control group. 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 organization s 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. Former agents and employees who were members of the litigation control group shall presumptively be deemed to be represented in the matter by the organization s lawyer but may at any time disavow said representation. (f) For purposes of this rule organization includes any corporation, partnership, association, joint stock company, union, trust, pension fund, unincorporated association, proprietorship or other business entity, state or local government or political subdivision thereof, or non-profit organization. N.J. R. P.C New Jersey Case Law Analyzing and Applying Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2, 4.3 and 1.13 New Jersey Courts have emphasized that, in determining whether communication with an opponent-organization s employee is permissible under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney must determine whether the individual is a current or fomer employee of the organization, is part of the organization s litigation control group, or is otherwise represented by counsel. See Andrews, 191 F.R.D. at 77; Michaels v. Woodson, 988 F. Supp. 468, 471 (D.N.J. 1997); Klier v. Sordoni Skanska Construction Co., 766 A.2d 761, 768 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001). An attorney need not make these determinations before initiating contact. See Andrews, 191 F.R.D. at 78 (discussing Michaels, 988 F. Supp. 468). Rather, such determinations must be made prior to engaging in any substantive ex parte communications, not before initiating contact with an individual. Id. (emphasis in original); contra McCarthy v. SEPTA, 772 A.2d 987, 993 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (interpreting comment to Rule 4.2 as instructing counsel to [make determinations] before having ex parte contact with an employee ). Dechert Page 3

5 Once an attorney establishes that the witness is not, or was not, within the litigation control group or otherwise represented by counsel, however, the attorney s ethical obligations are not over. Andrews, 191 F.R.D. at 79. The interviewing attorneys must still adhere to the requirements of Rule of Professional Conduct 4.3. See id. In other words, the attorney must avoid appearing disinterested, must clarify his or her role to avoid misunderstandings, and must exercise reasonable diligence in determining whether the interviewee is actually represented by the organization s attorney pursuant to 1.13(e) or has a right to such representation. See N.J.R.P.C The Litigation Control Group The litigation control group is defined as current and former agents and employees responsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the organization s legal position in the matter, whether or not in litigation.... Significant involvement requires involvement greater than merely supplying factual information regarding the matter in question. Michaels, 988 F. Supp. at 471 (quoting Report of Special Committee on RPC 4.2, 139 N.J.L.J. 1161, 1195 (1995). In crafting Rule 4.2, the Special Committee made a distinction between those employees who were involved in the subject matter of the litigation, and therefore, were not in the litigation control group, but were fact witnesses, and those employees who were involved in the legal decisions regarding the matter, and, therefore, were in the litigation control group. Report of Special Committee on RPC 4.2, 139 N.J.L.J. at This distinction furthers the goal of Rule that the status of an employee is not as important as his or her role in the organization when determining whether he or she is a member of the litigation control group. See Michaels, 988 F.Supp. at 471. By adopting the litigation control group approach, the New Jersey Supreme Court limited the number of employees that would be off-limits, clearly establishing that Rule 4.2 could not be used to shield all of an organization s employees from contact by an adversary. See Andrews, 191 F.R.D. at 78. Interestingly, this approach rejects the position taken by both the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in PSE & G v. Associated Electric & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd., 745 F. Supp (D.N.J. 1990), which served as the catalyst for change in the first place, and the Pennsylvania courts, which have opted for a broader test. See infra Part II. Courts applying New Jersey law have also rejected a finding of automatic representation when a member of an organization who, though not within the litigation control group, is offered representation by that organization. See Michaels, 988 F. Supp. at A company cannot impose representation on employees not within the control group without their consent, and an offer of representation does not constitute actual representation, unless and until accepted. See id. Moreover, the Michaels Court stressed that attorneys representing both the employer and its employees must ensure that such dual representation will not result in a conflict of interest contrary to Rule 1.7. See id. at 474. Page 4 Dechert

6 Current Employees Ex parte contact with a current employee of an opponent is prohibited if he or she is (1) a member of the litigation control group, as defined by New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct; and (2) if not, he or she is otherwise being represented by counsel under Rule 4.2. See Michaels, 988 F. Supp.at 472; Essex County Jail Annex Inmates v. Trefinger, 18 F. Supp. 2d 418, 429 (D.N.J. 1998). As noted above, an attorney may make initial contact with the employee to determine if he or she is a member of the litigation control group. The attorney must also, pursuant to Rule 4.3, decide if the employee actually is represented, or is entitled to representation, by the organization s attorney. Former Employees If the person an attorney wishes to interview is no longer employed by the opponentorganization, the attorney must determine whether he or she was within the organization s litigation control group. If so, the witness is presumptively represented by the organization. See Michaels, 988 F. Supp. at 472 (citing N.J. R. P.C. 1.13). That witness, however, may disavow the representation and then, pursuant to Rule 4.2, may be interviewed by the attorney. See id. [A] former employee who was not within the litigation control group and who is not otherwise represented by counsel is not in any way restricted from communicating with an attorney adverse to her former employer. Id. Practical Suggestions and Implications An Approved Script May Assist an Attorney in His or Her Initial Contact With an Employee While an attorney need not follow an exact script when initiating a conversation with a current or former employee of his or her adversary, New Jersey courts have suggested that an attorney should attempt to adhere to a general format designed to ensure compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Andrews, 191 F.R.D. at 79. The District Court of New Jersey s decision in In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation, 911 F. Supp. 148, 152 (D.N.J.) was decided before the Supreme Court of New Jersey adopted the recommendations of the Special Committee, but its practical suggestions, designed to assist attorneys when making initial contact with an adversary s employees, are still relevant today. In Prudential, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would provide for court review a script that counsel would use and follow in his initial interviews with employees. See id. at 152 n.5. The Court noted that: The script should ensure that the interviewer--who should be an attorney--identifies himself, his employer, his client, the nature of and parties to the pending action and its adversarial character. The interviewer should inform the potential interviewee that she need not speak to the interviewer, that she may wish an attorney Dechert Page 5

7 and that if, during her employment with Prudential, she ever engaged in discussion with Prudential counsel regarding this lawsuit or the circumstances from which it arose, she should not reveal it. Id. See also Sullivan Assoc., LTD., v. Medco Containment Serv., Inc., 607 A.2d 1386, 1390 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1992) (Rule 4.3 s guidelines provide that when conducting an interview with an unrepresented person, counsel should disclose his or her role, identity of client, adversarial position of client and former employer, and unwillingness to elicit privileged information). Former Employee May Disclose Confidential Communication With Organization s Attorney to His or Her New Attorney In Amatuzio v. Gandalf Systems Corp., 932 F. Supp. 113, 117 (D.N.J. 1996), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey considered whether a former employee, who initiated an action against his former employer, may disclose to his own attorney confidential communications that occurred between himself and the corporation s lawyer while he was employed. The defendant-corporation requested disqualification of the plaintiff s attorney, arguing that he had, among other things, violated Rule 4.2. See Amatuzio, 932 F.Supp. at 113. Balancing the corporation s interest in confidential legal advice with the employee s interest in asserting his rights against his former employer, the Court held that: communications with a corporation s attorney made by, to, or in the presence of a non-attorney employee who later becomes adverse to the corporation are not protected by RPC 4.2, RPC 4.4 or the attorney-client privilege from disclosure by the former employee to his litigation counsel if (i) the litigation involves an allegation by the employee that the corporation breached a statutory or common law duty which it owed to the employee, (ii) the communication disclosed involves or relates to the subject matter of the litigation, and (iii) the employee was not responsible for managing the litigation or making the corporate decision which led to the litigation. Id. at 118. The court cautioned, however, that if the employee involved in the same situation were the former in-house counsel for the defendant corporation, the result might be different pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility. See id. An Attorney Cannot Circumvent the Rules of Professional Conduct by Instructing a Non-Attorney to Conduct the Interview In Thermal Reduction Co. v. Am. Tank & Fabricating Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14993, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 1995), the defendant s expert witness, accompanied by its attorney, conducted an interview of the plaintiff s employee without notifying or Page 6 Dechert

8 receiving consent from the plaintiff corporation. Noting that the employee was currently the plant manager and held this position at the time in which the incident in question occurred, the Court found that Rule 4.2 applied. See id. at *6. Becuase it was a violation of Rule 4.2 for the non-lawyer, expert witness to interview the employee, it was a violation of Rule 5.3 for defendant s attorney to allow the interview to take place. See id. Evidence Gained Through a Professional Rules Violation Is Not Inadmissible Per Se The Superior Court of New Jersey has held that, in a civil case, the appropriate remedy for a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is bar discipline rather than suppression at trial of evidence wrongfully obtained. See New Jersey v. McCoy, 618 A.2d 384, 385 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1992); Tartaglia v. Paine Webber, Inc., 794 A.2d 816, 820 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002). In McCoy, the defendant argued that statements the co-defendant s attorney obtained in violation of Rule 4.2 should be suppressed. See McCoy, 618 A.2d at 385. The Court distinguished evidence obtained by a private person and that obtained by the government. Private persons are provided far more leeway in their attempts to procure evidence. What may be admissible by a private party would be excluded under the Due Process Clause if state action was [sic] involved. Id. at 386. In Tartaglia, the Court refused to suppress evidence allegedly obtained by the plaintiff in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Tartaglia, 794 A.2d at The Court reasoned that the policy objectives behind the exclusionary rule are not achieved by suppressing relevant evidence in the present dispute involving private parties. Id. at 820. Ex Parte Communication With Employees in Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, a derivation of the ABA s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, became effective in 1988 by order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Charles B. Gibbons, West s Pennsylvania Discovery Practice 19.2 at 593 n.2 (West Publishing Co. 1996). Rule 4.2, identical to the Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(1), See id., states: During the course of his representation of a client a lawyer shall not: (1) communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized by law to do so. Dechert Page 7

9 Pa. R.P.C The Rule s Comment provides, in pertinent part: In the case of an organization, this Rule prohibits communications by a lawyer for one party concerning the matter in representation with persons having a managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization, and with any other person whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability or whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization. Pa. R.P.C. 4.2 cmt. (2000). The lack of guidance from both the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning the application of Rule 4.2 to employees has led courts to employ the tests laid out in the plain language of Rule 4.2 and its comment, rather than distill the Rule and its comment into a single standard. Belote v. Maritrans Operating Partners, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3571, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. March 20, 1998). Pennsylvania Case Law Interpreting Rule 4.2 as Applied to Current Employees Adopting the Comments to Rule 4.2, Pennsylvania courts have consistently held that an attorney is barred from conducting an ex parte interview with an adversary s current employee where such employee: (1) has managerial responsibility; (2) is one whose acts or omissions in connection with the matter at issue can be imputed to his or her employer; or (3) may make an admission on behalf of his or her employer. See e.g., Belote v. Maritrans Operating Partners, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3571 (E.D. Pa. 1998); McCarthy v. SEPTA, 772 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 2001); Pritts v. Wendy s of Greater Pittsburgh Inc., 37 Pa. D. & C.4th 158 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1998). Managerial Employees Managerial employees have been defined to include [e]mployees who supervise a large number of subordinates and who must exercise a significant amount of individual discretion to carry out their duties. Belote, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3571, at * 6 (citing Carter-Herman v. City of Philadelphia, 897 F. Supp. 899, 904 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 1995). By way of example, in Carter-Herman, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was presented with the question of which employees of a police department were managerial employees, and thus off limits to the department s adversary. See Carter-Herman, 897 F. Supp. at 903. Reasoning that the ranks of Lieutenant and above exercise significant individual judgment and discretion outside of established policies and procedures, the Court found them to be managerial employees. See id. Sergeants, the police department argued, were also managerial employees because they direct a squad of officers. See id. The Court rejected this argument, and, analogizing a Sergeant to a foreman, deemed Sergeants Page 8 Dechert

10 and lower ranking officers to be non-managerial employees, as these ranks perform work under the constrains of department procedure and receive instructions from superior officers. See id. Accord Lennen v. John Eppler Machine Works Co., 1997 WL , at *2, (E.D. Pa. Sep ) (finding employee had managerial responsibility when she was referenced as officer or General Manager in the employer s memorandum and as owner in employer s complaint to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission); Lochead v. Amtrak Nat l Railroad Passenger Corp.., 1994 WL , *7 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 1994) (finding employee clearly did not have managerial responsibility as reservation sales agent ). Imputed Liability The comment to Rule 4.2 also defines a party as an individual whose act or omission in connection with the plaintiff s injury can be imputed to the defendant organization. Belote, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3571, at *7. This imputed liability does not apply to just managerial employees. Rather, a nonmanagerial employee who is not just a fact witness, but who has acted or failed to act in such a way so as to, potentially, expose his or her employer to liability may fall within Rule 4.2 s coverage. The distinction between those employees that are actors and those that are just observers is very fact specific... so there may be circumstances in which court intervention would be appropriate. Pritts, 37 Pa. D. & C. 4th at 169. One potential source of guidance, however, is the nature of or statutory basis for the underlying claim. In Belote, the plaintiff invoked the Jones Act, claiming his injuries were the result of the defendant barge and its crew, and sought to interview the captain of the barge. Belote, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3571, at *8. The Court reasoned that, because the captain s responsibilities, such as maintenance and upkeep, were directly in issue, his acts or omissions could be imputed to his employer and so fell within Rule 4.2. See id. Similarly, in Berryman v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 1995 US. Dist. LEXIS 12768, *5 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 1995), the plaintiff s claim was based on his employer s alleged failure to provide a safe workplace when he was injured on an end spring. The Court found that the plaintiff could not interview any of the employees who were doing something to the end springs at the time of the accident without first consulting the employer s attorney, because their acts might be imputed to their employer. See Berryman, 1995 US. Dist. LEXIS 12768, at *5. Admissions Unless a lawyer has the consent of the opposing counsel, the lawyer also may not contact present employees of an opposing party whose statements may constitute admissions on the part of the corporation. Pritts, 37 Pa. D. & C.4th at (quoting PBA Comm. on Prof l Legal Ethics and Prof l Responsibility, Formal Op ). An admission is a statement by the party s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship. Belote, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3571, at *9 (barge captain s statements concerning vessel maintenance and safety procedures were within the Dechert Page 9

11 scope of his employment and, therefore, were admissions) (discussing Garrett v. Nat l R.R. Passenger Corp., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10868, at *4 n.2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 1990) (finding admission when defendant s employee made statement about his actions on date of accident)). Pennsylvania Case Law Applying Rule 4.2 to Former Employees In applying Rule 4.2 to former employees, courts have recognized that there is no bright-line test and no guidance from the Third Circuit or Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In fact, most courts that have considered the applicability of Rule 4.2 to former employees have noted that it is unclear whether such contact falls within the scope of the rule. Dillon Co., Inc. v. The Sico Co., 1993 WL , at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 1993). Noting, however, that there is a risk that attorney-client confidences may be communicated by a former employee to an interviewing attorney, many Pennsylvania courts have attempted to fashion a means through which to consider the appropriateness of ex-parte communications with former employees. See id. at * 3-5. The federal courts analysis typically consists of 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. Dillon, 1993 WL , at *5. See also Spencer v. Steinman, 179 F.R.D. 484, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (accepting Dillon factors as a sensible and policy-oriented middle ground and... apply[ing] them to inform its judgment ). If, after weighing these factors, it appears that there is a substantial risk of disclosure of privileged matters, as opposed to the risk of the adverse party learning information which might be damaging to the former employer s litigation position, 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 employer s counsel should be notified prior to any ex parte interview. Dillon, 1993 WL , at *5. In Spencer, the court refused to find that Rule 4.2 prohibited the communication between an attorney, Wood, and his adversary s former attorney-employee, Lawrence. See Spencer, 179 F.R.D. at 491. Wood telephoned Lawrence to ask him about a conversation that he allegedly witnessed that took place in court and off the record. See id. at 489. The Court assumed without deciding that Rule 4.2 applied to former employees and found that Wood was not seeking privileged information, but rather Lawrence s personal recollection of an event he allegedly witnessed. Id. Pennsylvania state courts also have not applied a bright-line test, but instead have relied upon opinions issued both by the American Bar Association and the Pennsylvania Bar Association. See Pritts, 37 Pa. D. & C. 4th at ; Wein v. The Williamsport Hospital & Medical Center, 45 Pa. D. & C. 4th 537, (Pa.Com. Pl. 2000). While also acknowledging that the text of Rule 4.2 arguably does not apply to former employees, the Bar opinions, and consequently the courts, weigh Page 10 Dechert

12 factors that reflect a concern for protecting communication potentially within the attorney-client privilege. In Pritts, the court stated: With respect to any unrepresented former employee, of course, the potentially communicating adversary attorney must be careful not to seek to induce the former employee to violate the privilege attaching to attorney-client communications to the extent his or her communications as a former employee with his or her former employer s counsel are protected by the privilege (a privilege not belonging to or for the benefit of the former employee, but the former employer). Such an attempt could violate Rule 4.4 (requiring respect for the rights of third persons). 37 Pa. D. & C. 4th at 165 (quoting ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof l Responsibility, Formal Op ). Likewise, the Wein court, relied upon the same ABA opinion, adopting the safeguards suggested by it. [E]x parte communication is allowed under the following conditions: (1) the attorney is prohibited from eliciting or using any information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege; (2) the attorney must immediately disclose his or her capacity to the former employee; (3) any request by the person contacted that his or her personal attorney, or the company s attorney, be present must be honored; and (4) the attorney should advise the person that they have the right to refuse to be interviewed, or if they wish, to be interviewed with the company s counsel present. Wein, 45 Pa. D. & C. 4th at 543 (citing ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof l Responsibility, Formal Op ). The Pritts court noted that the Pennsylvania Bar Association had suggested virtually identical safeguards as those suggested by the American Bar Association, but refused to adopt the fourth. Pritts, 37 Pa. D. & C. 4th at The Court rejected this socalled Miranda requirement since Rule 4.2 does not extend to former employees and Rule 4.3 (providing, [w]hen the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer s role in the matter, the lawyer should make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding ) does not require that unrepresented persons be advised that they have the right to refuse to be interviewed or to be interviewed only with the company s attorney present. Id. at 167. Dechert Page 11

13 Practical Suggestions and Implications Determinations Regarding an Interviewee s Status as an Employee Should Be Made Prior to Initiating Contact The Pennsylvania Superior Court has suggested that determinations regarding a current or former employee s status must be made before contacting the employee. See McCarthy, 772 A.2d at 993. In McCarthy, the Court interpreted Rule 4.2 s Comment as instructing counsel to determine, before having ex parte contact with an employee, the position and nature of employment of that employee in regard to the possibility that a statement given by that employee and potentially admitted at trial could impute liability onto their employer. Id. Evidence Obtained Through Professional Rules Violation Generally Inadmissible Federal courts applying Pennsylvania law have refused to admit evidence obtained through a professional conduct rules violation, but have noted that the violation does not preclude the attorney from calling the employee as a witness or otherwise gathering the information through discovery. See Lennen, 1997 WL , at *3; Lochead, 1994 WL , at *7; Garrett, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Thus, courts have admitted videotaped testimony, videotaped depositions, Lochead, 1994 WL , at *7, and information obtained through other legitimate discovery processes, Garrett, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10868, at *7. The Lennen court reasoned that by finding the evidence admissible, it would allow the violating attorney to benefit from his rules violation, and could also potentially lead the attorney to attempt to testify for impeachment purposes. Lennen, 1997 WL , at *3. Disqualification of Counsel Generally Inappropriate Sanction for Rule 4.2 Violations Because Pennsylvania trial and intermediate appellate courts ability to disqualify attorneys based on their violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is extremely limited, this sanction method is generally rejected in Rule 4.2 violation cases. See McCarthy, 772 A.2d at The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated: Perceived violations of [the Pa. R.P.C.] do not permit the trial courts or the intermediate appellate courts to alter the rules of law, evidentiary rules, presumptions or burdens of proof. More importantly, violations of those Codes are not a proper subject for consideration of the lower courts to impose punishment for attorney or judicial misconduct. Id. at 992 (quoting Reilly by Reilly v. SEPTA, 489 A.2d 1291, 1299 (Pa. 1985)). Instead, disqualification is appropriate only to ensure the parties receive the fair trial which due process requires. Id. at 991. Page 12 Dechert

14 Applying Rule 4.2 to Former Employees Who Are Putative Class Members Recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered the application of Rule 4.2 to former managerial employees who are members of a putative class. See Dondore v. NGK Metals Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6268, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. May 16, 2001). Absent consent from putative class counsel, the court opined that an attorney wishing to interview a former managerial employee within that group must obtain court approval. See id. at *5. Noting the importance of fact gathering outside the formal discovery process, the court, nevertheless, insisted that the members of the putative class must be shielded from defense counsel s unsupervised efforts and make an intelligent and voluntary decision whether to be represented by the putative class or speak to and aid the former employer. Id. at *5-6. The Court suggested a procedure that would strive to ensure the interests of all parties were served: (1) defense counsel must notify the court and all interested parties of his or her desire to interview a former employee; (2) all counsel should receive an opportunity to be heard; (3) if appropriate, the court may contact the potential witness, explaining to him or her the nature of the action, his or her rights, and the request for an interview; (4) the former employee must have the opportunity to consult with separate counsel; and (5) the former employee must decide whether, and under what conditions, to grant the interview. See id. at *6. Dechert Page 13

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 91-3

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 91-3 Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 91-3 I. AS COUNSEL FOR A PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY MAY NOT ETHICALLY INTERVIEW PRESENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OF A DEFENDANT CORPORATION IF: (a) THE EMPLOYEES

More information

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 09-03. Question Presented. Facts

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 09-03. Question Presented. Facts Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 09-03 IF THE VICTIM IN A CRIMINAL CASE THAT A COUNTY ATTORNEY IS PROSECUTING HAS RETAINED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM IN A CIVIL CASE ARISING FROM THE SAME

More information

requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1814 UNDISCLOSED RECORDING OF THIRD PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS In this hypothetical, a Criminal Defense Lawyer represents A who is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled

More information

ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT

ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT Mark J. Oberti Oberti Sullivan LLP 723 Main Street, Suite 340 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 401-3556 mark@osattorneys.com Edwin Sullivan Oberti Sullivan LLP 723 Main

More information

No. 05-5393. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; MANESSTA BEVERLY, Plaintiff/Intervenor in District Court

No. 05-5393. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; MANESSTA BEVERLY, Plaintiff/Intervenor in District Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 05-5393 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; MANESSTA BEVERLY, Plaintiff/Intervenor in District Court v. HORA, INC. d/b/a DAYS

More information

Duties of Corporate Counsel

Duties of Corporate Counsel April 1, 2015 Making It To The Finish Line & How Not To Stumble Over Your Ethical Obligations When Handling Internal Investigations, Whistleblower Complaints & Social Media A Presentation to ACC-GNY Kathleen

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL PHARMA SUPPLY, INC., v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER MITCHELL A. STEIN and STEIN LAW, P.C., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION

More information

*Rule 1.4(a) *Rule 1.16(a) *Rule 1.16(a)(2) *Rule 1.16(b) *Rule 3.3 *DR7-102(A)(4) *DR7-102(A)(6)

*Rule 1.4(a) *Rule 1.16(a) *Rule 1.16(a)(2) *Rule 1.16(b) *Rule 3.3 *DR7-102(A)(4) *DR7-102(A)(6) NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Committee Formal Opinion 1993-94/7 Candor to Tribunal: Use of Questionable Evidence In Criminal Defense January 27, 1994 RULE REFERENCES: *Rule 1.2 *Rule 1.2(a) *Rule

More information

SOCIAL MEDIA IN PERSONAL INJURY LAW

SOCIAL MEDIA IN PERSONAL INJURY LAW David K. Inscho Kline and Specter, P.C. SOCIAL MEDIA IN PERSONAL INJURY LAW The Internet isn t written in pencil Mark Social Media Issues Discovery of Social Media Social Media in Investigation Social

More information

Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9

Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 MARY SOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION Page 1 of

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN STEVEN OLSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-C-1126 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

More information

Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship

Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship [click] By Bruce A. Campbell 1 Introduction In most areas of the practice of law, there are a number of ethical issues that arise on a frequent

More information

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation

More information

Case 8:05-cv-00636-JSM-TBM Document 23 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:05-cv-00636-JSM-TBM Document 23 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:05-cv-00636-JSM-TBM Document 23 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MARIJA STONE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:05-cv-636-T-30TBM

More information

FORMAL OPINION NO. 2013-189. Accessing Information about Third Parties Through a Social Networking Website. Facts:

FORMAL OPINION NO. 2013-189. Accessing Information about Third Parties Through a Social Networking Website. Facts: FORMAL OPINION NO. 2013-189 Accessing Information about Third Parties Through a Social Networking Website Facts: Lawyer wishes to investigate an opposing party, a witness, or a juror by accessing the person

More information

SSSHHHHH THERE S AN INSURANCE BROKER IN THE ROOM!

SSSHHHHH THERE S AN INSURANCE BROKER IN THE ROOM! ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar, March 1-3, 2012: Hey! Give Me Back That Document! Privilege Issues in Insurance Coverage Disputes SSSHHHHH THERE S AN

More information

TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians

TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and

More information

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation

More information

ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION. Formal Opinion 2011-01 (Collaborative Family Law)

ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION. Formal Opinion 2011-01 (Collaborative Family Law) ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION Formal Opinion 2011-01 (Collaborative Family Law) Issue: Can a family lawyer enter into a collaborative law agreement consistent with her ethical duties, notwithstanding the

More information

The Interaction Between the Rules of Professional Conduct and Malpractice Actions in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia

The Interaction Between the Rules of Professional Conduct and Malpractice Actions in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia The Interaction Between the Rules of Professional Conduct and Malpractice Actions in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia By Dennis J. Quinn and Elizabeth A. Francis 1 The sanctioning of an

More information

STANDARD 3.5 ON ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE LITIGANTS

STANDARD 3.5 ON ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE LITIGANTS STANDARD 3.5 ON ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE LITIGANTS STANDARD In appropriate circumstances, a provider may offer pro se litigants assistance or limited representation at various stages of proceedings. COMMENTARY

More information

Case 2:08-cv-83111-ER Document 55 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:08-cv-83111-ER Document 55 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:08-cv-83111-ER Document 55 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA REGINALD DENT : CONSOLIDATED : MDL 875 v. : : EDPA CIVIL ACTION

More information

With regard to these scenarios, your request poses the following questions:

With regard to these scenarios, your request poses the following questions: LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1820 CAN AN ATTORNEY EMPLOYEE OF A RAILROAD COMMUNICATE WITH INJURED RAILROAD WORKERS WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL? You have presented two hypotheticals involving the employees of

More information

What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration

What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration Russell R. Yurk Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P. 2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1049 (602) 234-7819

More information

Case 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7 Case 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HONORABLE ROBERT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,

More information

Firms / Kazaras & Rubel 1

Firms / Kazaras & Rubel 1 Ethics of Social Media Marketing for Law Firms Presented by Paul J. Kazaras, Esq. (Philadelphia Bar Association) Gina F. Rubel, Esq., Moderator (Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. ) Apps. Blogs Chat Rooms

More information

Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01457-CV IN RE SOUTHPAK CONTAINER CORPORATION AND CLEVELAND

More information

~~~~~N~~A~T~ ~~~~.S~~~H~~~~~5 LEM ENT ~~PR~~~ ~~~~c~~ ~~~~~

~~~~~N~~A~T~ ~~~~.S~~~H~~~~~5 LEM ENT ~~PR~~~ ~~~~c~~ ~~~~~ v~ ~~~~~N~~A~T~ ~~~~.S~~~H~~~~~5 LEM ENT ~~PR~~~ ~~~~c~~ ~~~~~ No. SJC - 11800 Suffolk County Chris E. Maling & another, Plaintiffs/Appellants v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. &

More information

Corporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'

Corporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule' Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Corporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'

More information

THE PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE COMMITTEE Opinion 2009-02 (March 2009)

THE PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE COMMITTEE Opinion 2009-02 (March 2009) THE PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE COMMITTEE Opinion 2009-02 (March 2009) The inquirer deposed an 18 year old woman (the witness ). The witness is not a party to the litigation, nor

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 13 September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM M. LOGAN Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ.

More information

The Boundaries Of Monitoring Employee E-Mail

The Boundaries Of Monitoring Employee E-Mail Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Boundaries Of Monitoring Employee E-Mail

More information

Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics. Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics. Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey N.J.L.J. N.J.L. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey OPINION 709 Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Conflict of Interest: Municipal Police Officer

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ANNUAL DUI TRAINING 2010 TUNICA, MISSISSIPPI - OCTOBER 21-22, 2010

TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ANNUAL DUI TRAINING 2010 TUNICA, MISSISSIPPI - OCTOBER 21-22, 2010 TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ANNUAL DUI TRAINING 2010 TUNICA, MISSISSIPPI - OCTOBER 21-22, 2010 Glenn R. Funk 117 Union Street Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 255-9595 ETHICS IN DUI DEFENSE

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL

More information

Business Ethics Issues in Oregon and Washington: A Tale of Three Cases

Business Ethics Issues in Oregon and Washington: A Tale of Three Cases Business Ethics Issues in Oregon and Washington: A Tale of Three Cases Mark J. Fucile Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 503.294.9501 mjfucile@stoel.com 1 This paper discusses

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1452 PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

More information

Case 1:09-cv-00554-JAW Document 165 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 2495 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Case 1:09-cv-00554-JAW Document 165 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 2495 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE Case 1:09-cv-00554-JAW Document 165 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 2495 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MICHAEL HINTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:09-cv-00554-JAW ) OUTBOARD MARINE

More information

OPINION 2014-2 Issued August 8, 2014. Imputation of Conflicts in a Part-Time County Prosecutor s Law Firm

OPINION 2014-2 Issued August 8, 2014. Imputation of Conflicts in a Part-Time County Prosecutor s Law Firm BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE 65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431 Telephone: 614.387.9370 Fax: 614.387.9379 www.supremecourt.ohio.gov DAVID E. TSCHANTZ CHAIR

More information

SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010.

SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010. SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010. CRAIG A. GARGOTTA UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE: ' CASE NO. 09-12799-CAG

More information

College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Seventh Circuit

College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Seventh Circuit College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Seventh Circuit Challenging Issues in Government Investigations: Who does the government attorney represent and who can the government attorney contact directly (and

More information

Lawyer Mobility in the Context of Corporate Law Departments

Lawyer Mobility in the Context of Corporate Law Departments Lawyer Mobility in the Context of Corporate Law Departments Presented by: William H. Roberts, Blank Rome LLP Jeremy A. Rist, Blank Rome LLP Kevin M. Passerini, Blank Rome LLP I. Do corporations need to

More information

5/12/2015 AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS PURPOSE OF AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS

5/12/2015 AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS PURPOSE OF AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS Pretrial Practice 2015 4:00 P.M. PANEL TOPIC SETTLEMENT AGGREGATE SETTLEMENT CONCERNS May 12, 2015 New York, New York Kelly Strange Crawford, Esq. AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS Class Actions SINGLE LAW SUIT PROCEEDING

More information

Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court

Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court Preamble The following are guidelines for attorneys and non-lawyer volunteers appointed as guardians ad litem for children in most family

More information

INFORMAL OPINION 2014-06 WHEN CLIENT CONSENT IS NECESSARY IN LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION OF CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY DEBTOR

INFORMAL OPINION 2014-06 WHEN CLIENT CONSENT IS NECESSARY IN LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION OF CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY DEBTOR 30 Bank Street PO Box 350 New Britain CT 06050-0350 06051 for 30 Bank Street Professional Ethics Committee P: (860) 223-4400 F: (860) 223-4488 INFORMAL OPINION 2014-06 WHEN CLIENT CONSENT IS NECESSARY

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2014 UT 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH In the Matter of the Discipline of JERE B. RENEER, JERE B. RENEER,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD

More information

The Role of Defense Counsel in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

The Role of Defense Counsel in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims The Role of Defense Counsel in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims I. Every criminal defense lawyer will, at sometime or another, be challenged as ineffective it comes with the territory. It is natural

More information

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE/ETHICAL ISSUES FOR EMPLOYERS. CLE September 2013

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE/ETHICAL ISSUES FOR EMPLOYERS. CLE September 2013 EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE/ETHICAL ISSUES FOR EMPLOYERS CLE September 2013 T WO MAJOR T YPES OF REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS Class Actions (opt-out classes) Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) Haw. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) Title

More information

NEBRASKA ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION FOR LAWYERS. No. 12-10

NEBRASKA ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION FOR LAWYERS. No. 12-10 NEBRASKA ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION FOR LAWYERS No. 12-10 A Nebraska lawyer s duties to former clients do not allow representing someone with interests materially adverse to the former client where the conflicting

More information

Opinion #177. Advancing Litigation Costs Through Lines of Credit

Opinion #177. Advancing Litigation Costs Through Lines of Credit Opinion #177. Advancing Litigation Costs Through Lines of Credit Issued by the Professional Ethics Commission Date Issued: December 14, 2001 Facts and Question An attorney has requested an opinion on whether

More information

INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. IC 5-11-5.5 Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection

INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. IC 5-11-5.5 Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection As amended by P.L.79-2007. INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT IC 5-11-5.5 Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection IC 5-11-5.5-1 Definitions Sec. 1. The following definitions

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALFREDO MEJIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2248 ) CITIZENS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and Others similarly situated, v. Michael Harrison, Esquire, Plaintiff, Defendant. OPINION Civ. No. 07-4255 (WHW) Walls,

More information

12/3/2015. Thomas J. Farrell Farrell and Reisinger, LLC Pittsburgh

12/3/2015. Thomas J. Farrell Farrell and Reisinger, LLC Pittsburgh Brian W. Perry, Esq. PSWZ Law Firm Harrisburg David J. Freed Cumberland County District Attorney Carlisle Thomas J. Farrell Farrell and Reisinger, LLC Pittsburgh A lawyer shall not represent a client if

More information

CONTACTING REPRESENTED PARTIES: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

CONTACTING REPRESENTED PARTIES: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONTACTING REPRESENTED PARTIES: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS By William J. Wernz and Wendy Willson Legge Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Reprinted from Minnesota Trial Lawyer (Summer

More information

RUNNING THE ETHICAL OBSTACLE COURSE: JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENTS

RUNNING THE ETHICAL OBSTACLE COURSE: JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENTS RUNNING THE ETHICAL OBSTACLE COURSE: JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENTS Todd M. Sahner * The general counsel of one of your long-time corporate clients asks you to defend his company in a significant multi-party

More information

FACTUAL BACKGROUND. former co-workers of the decedents with whom they worked at common job sites, in common

FACTUAL BACKGROUND. former co-workers of the decedents with whom they worked at common job sites, in common SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION This Document Refers To: WALTER SKY x Index No.: 105281/2000 RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER FACTUAL

More information

Conflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law. Janet Savage 1

Conflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law. Janet Savage 1 Conflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law Janet Savage 1 Plaintiffs suing their former employers for wrongful discharge or employment discrimination

More information

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND CONDO ASSOCIATION ATTORNEY. Presented May 13, 2005

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND CONDO ASSOCIATION ATTORNEY. Presented May 13, 2005 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND CONDO ASSOCIATION ATTORNEY Presented May 13, 2005 Advising Homeowners and Condominium Associations Washington State Bar Association By Joseph P.

More information

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

More information

HILTON HARRISBURG & TOWERS

HILTON HARRISBURG & TOWERS UNFAIR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT PRACTICES (REGULATIONS) AND PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION (REGULATIONS) THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON BAD FAITH ACTIONS Presented By: Jay Barry Harris, Esquire Krista

More information

HIPAA IN A NUTSHELL: A Synopsis of How the HIPAA Privacy Rules Impact Ex Parte Communications. By Larry A. Golston, Jr.

HIPAA IN A NUTSHELL: A Synopsis of How the HIPAA Privacy Rules Impact Ex Parte Communications. By Larry A. Golston, Jr. HIPAA IN A NUTSHELL: A Synopsis of How the HIPAA Privacy Rules Impact Ex Parte Communications By Larry A. Golston, Jr. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 COMMERCE STREET POST OFFICE

More information

The Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Application in Litigation. by George O. Peterson

The Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Application in Litigation. by George O. Peterson The Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Application in Litigation by George O. Peterson I. INTRODUCTION Trusts and estates attorneys who represent fiduciaries may have little occasion

More information

Question 5. After the trial, Attorney sent a $500 gift certificate to Doctor, with a note thanking her for recommending that Peter call him.

Question 5. After the trial, Attorney sent a $500 gift certificate to Doctor, with a note thanking her for recommending that Peter call him. Question 5 Attorney mailed a professional announcement to several local physicians, listing his name and address and his area of law practice as personal injury. Doctor received Attorney s announcement

More information

Drafting the Joint Defense Agreement

Drafting the Joint Defense Agreement Drafting the Joint Defense Agreement (with Sample Provisions) Daralyn J. Durie Joint defense agreements have some obvious advantages, but some not-so-obvious disadvantages. If you plan to enter into one,

More information

INVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees

INVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees INTRODUCTION INVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees By: Maureen S. Binetti, Esq. Christopher R. Binetti, Paralegal Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. When can the investigation which may

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EXPLANATION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EXPLANATION AND ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID MAILEY v. 01-CV-2747 SEPTA, et al. EXPLANATION AND ORDER On July 2, 1999, David Mailey was injured while attempting to

More information

Case 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 77 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 77 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 8 Case 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 77 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x EDWARD ZYBURO, on behalf of himself and all

More information

TEMPORARY LAWYERS WORKING THROUGH A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT SERVICE

TEMPORARY LAWYERS WORKING THROUGH A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT SERVICE LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1712 http://www.vacle.org/opinions/1712.txt TEMPORARY LAWYERS WORKING THROUGH A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT SERVICE You have presented a hypothetical situation in which a staffing agency recruits,

More information

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-402 Issued: September 1997

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-402 Issued: September 1997 KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-402 Issued: September 1997 Since the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct in 1990, the Kentucky Supreme Court has adopted various amendments, and

More information

CAN YOU PUT AN INDEPENDENT FACT WITNESS UNDER A CONTRACT THAT PROVIDES THAT HE OR SHE WILL NOT TALK TO OPPOSING COUNSEL VOLUNTARILY?

CAN YOU PUT AN INDEPENDENT FACT WITNESS UNDER A CONTRACT THAT PROVIDES THAT HE OR SHE WILL NOT TALK TO OPPOSING COUNSEL VOLUNTARILY? CAN YOU PUT AN INDEPENDENT FACT WITNESS UNDER A CONTRACT THAT PROVIDES THAT HE OR SHE WILL NOT TALK TO OPPOSING COUNSEL VOLUNTARILY? 1 I. Introduction by Charles L. Gholz 2 and Bryan J. Byerly 3 This article

More information

RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES

RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES LOCAL RULES FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI [Renumbered and codified by order of the Supreme Court effective May 18, 2006; amended effective April 23, 2009.] RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES

More information

Defining Aggregate Settlements: the Road Not to Take. By: Peter R. Jarvis and Trisha M. Rich. Summary and Introduction

Defining Aggregate Settlements: the Road Not to Take. By: Peter R. Jarvis and Trisha M. Rich. Summary and Introduction Defining Aggregate Settlements: the Road Not to Take By: Peter R. Jarvis and Trisha M. Rich I Summary and Introduction ABA Model Rule 1.8(g) provides that: A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall

More information

THROUGH A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT SERVICE.

THROUGH A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT SERVICE. LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1712 TEMPORARY LAWYERS WORKING THROUGH A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT SERVICE. You have presented a hypothetical situation in which a staffing agency recruits, screens and interviews lawyers

More information

Professional Responsibility and New Technology

Professional Responsibility and New Technology Professional Responsibility and New Technology Kelly A. Campbell Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP Presentation to Association of Corporate Counsel May 9, 2012 Overview Competence: Duty to know Social Media

More information

WAIVER OF FUTURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: PERMITTED IN GEORGIA?

WAIVER OF FUTURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: PERMITTED IN GEORGIA? WAIVER OF FUTURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: PERMITTED IN GEORGIA? Middle District of Georgia Bankruptcy Law Institute Friday, September 7, 2007 Macon, Georgia Clark D. Cunningham W. Lee Burge Professor of

More information

ETHICAL AND MALPRACTICE ISSUES IN PROBATE ADMINISTRATION. by Mark J. Fucile

ETHICAL AND MALPRACTICE ISSUES IN PROBATE ADMINISTRATION. by Mark J. Fucile CHAPTER 7 ETHICAL AND MALPRACTICE ISSUES IN PROBATE ADMINISTRATION by Mark J. Fucile Fucile & Reising LLP 115 NW First Ave., Suite 401 Portland, OR 97209 503.224.4895 mark@frllp.com www.frllp.com How to

More information

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO. Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO. Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: JOHN GLEASON, in his official capacity as Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel vs.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Bartle, C.J. December 14, 2006

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Bartle, C.J. December 14, 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA REBECCA S. ZEIGENFUSE : CIVIL ACTION on behalf of herself and all : others similarly situated : : v. : : APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT,

More information

: : before this court (the Court Annexed Mediation Program ); and

: : before this court (the Court Annexed Mediation Program ); and UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In re: ADOPTION OF PROCEDURES GOVERNING : MEDIATION OF MATTERS AND THE

More information

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added

More information

NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 14-1

NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 14-1 NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 14-1 Social workers and other healthcare professionals may not report child or elder abuse without the express contemporaneous permission of the lawyer for whom they are doing

More information

STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OF NORTH DAKOTA ETHICS COMMITTEE OPINION NUMBER 99-04 December 14, 1999

STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OF NORTH DAKOTA ETHICS COMMITTEE OPINION NUMBER 99-04 December 14, 1999 STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OF NORTH DAKOTA ETHICS COMMITTEE OPINION NUMBER 99-04 December 14, 1999 The Ethics Committee has received a request for an opinion from an attorney on the question of whether that

More information

The John Crane Decision: What It Means and What It Does Not Mean

The John Crane Decision: What It Means and What It Does Not Mean The John Crane Decision: What It Means and What It Does Not Mean By Roger T. Creager Virginia attorneys have been reviewing their expert disclosures more carefully to make certain they are sufficient under

More information

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation

More information

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 05-0613 444444444444 IN RE BEXAR COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR

More information

PART IV GEORGIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

PART IV GEORGIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Atlanta March 21, 2014 The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following order was passed: The Court having considered the 2012-2 First Amended Motion to Amend

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 29 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tina M. Dahle, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Tina M. Dahle,

More information

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery.

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. Published on Arkansas Judiciary (https://courts.arkansas.gov) Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:

More information

UTAH. Past medical expenses may be recovered. Plaintiffs must show that they have been injured and,

UTAH. Past medical expenses may be recovered. Plaintiffs must show that they have been injured and, UTAH Rick L. Rose Kristine M. Larsen RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 43585 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 Facsimile: (801) 532-7543 rrose@rqn.com

More information

Case 1:98-cv-01232-CKK Document 854 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:98-cv-01232-CKK Document 854 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:98-cv-01232-CKK Document 854 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Civil Action

More information

When Trusted Counsel Turns Whistleblower. Laura Laemmle-Weidenfeld Patton Boggs LLP Washington, DC lweidenfeld@pattonboggs.com. Statutory Language

When Trusted Counsel Turns Whistleblower. Laura Laemmle-Weidenfeld Patton Boggs LLP Washington, DC lweidenfeld@pattonboggs.com. Statutory Language When Trusted Counsel Turns Whistleblower Laura Laemmle-Weidenfeld Patton Boggs LLP Washington, DC lweidenfeld@pattonboggs.com Health care providers have long appreciated the irony that by conducting an

More information

Opinion 465. October 1990 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Opinion 465. October 1990 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Opinion 465 October 1990 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. May an attorney ethically own an interest in a lending institution which loans money to personal injury clients of the attorney? 2. May an attorney borrow

More information

Current Trends in Litigation Involving the Use of Social Media

Current Trends in Litigation Involving the Use of Social Media Current Trends in Litigation Involving the Use of Social Media John B. Kearney Partner and Head, New Jersey Litigation Group Ballard Spahr LLP 1 Introduction Social media now affect all phases of litigation

More information