91-1.

Case DateJanuary 18, 1991
CourtAlaska
Alaska Ethics Opinion 1991. 91-1. Ethics Opinion No. 91-1 Communication with Former Employees of Corporation Represented by Counsel(Reconsideration of 88-3). The Committee has been asked to re-evaluate Opinion No. 88-3 regarding communications with former employees of a corporation represented by counsel. The Committee expressed the view in that opinion that "an attorney representing an opposing party in a lawsuit against a corporation may contact former employees of the corporation, including former members of the corporation's control group, who dealt with the subject matter of the litigation without permission of corporate counsel." The opinion was qualified to the extent that counsel could not contact the former employee if that person was individually represented with regard to the pending matter, and further, the questioning attorney could not inquire into privileged attorney-client communications with the former employee. Otherwise, the attorney was free to "communicate with a former employee of an adverse party if the former employee is not represented by counsel." The opinion of the Committee, as expressed in Opinion No. 88-3, is hereby reaffirmed. Nevertheless, because there are some isolated court opinions supporting a contrary conclusion, the Committee believes it appropriate to discuss the rationale behind its opinion and underlying rule, and distinguish its conclusion from that reached by others considering the issue. DR 7-104(A)(1) prohibits a lawyer from communicating on the subject of his representation with "a party" he knows to be represented by another attorney, without that attorney's consent, or unless authorized by law. The purpose of that rule is to prevent lawyers from deliberately dodging adversary counsel to reach - and exploit - that party, thereby obviating the effectiveness of retained counsel. By doing so, the rule minimizes the likelihood that clients will make improvident settlements, ill-advised disclosures and unwarranted concessions against which counsel would advise. Niesig v. Team I, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493 (1990). The issue is whether former employees of a corporate party are also to be considered as "parties" under this rule. Since corporate parties act only through natural persons, it is obvious that some of the current employees must be classified as parties, or the corporation would be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT