Many of us have had the experience of opposing counsel copying their client on an email about the matter (and sometimes an email that takes us to task for some supposed transgression). The immediate response may be to “Reply All” and tell the lawyer (and their client) that they are wrong. Satisfying, but when you
ABA provides guidance on the “no-contact rule” for pro se lawyers
Model Rule 4.2 is often referred to as the “no-contact” rule, prohibiting lawyers from contacting represented parties regarding the subject matter of the representation without first obtaining a court order or the consent of the other party’s lawyer. Just last month, the ABA issued Formal Opinion 502, which warns pro se lawyers—that is, lawyers
Opinion from the Buckeye State; “no-contact” rule revisited
The “no contact rule” set out in Model Rule 4.2 can be a source of confusion for many lawyers. The rule prohibits a lawyer from communicating with a represented person about the subject of the representation without the consent of the other lawyer. We have discussed the rule before in the corporate context, but
No DQ for contacting represented party on a different subject, district court says
The scope of the “no-contact rule” — barring a lawyer from communicating with represented persons — is spotlighted in a disqualification ruling that a Florida district court handed down earlier this month. The opinion is a reminder that the prohibition against contact (without permission of the person’s counsel) extends only to “the subject of the
Can we talk? In-house counsel and opponent’s lawyer can communicate, says Va. opinion
Most lawyers have a general understanding of the “no-contact rule” — namely that under state versions of Model Rule 4.2, with a few exceptions, you can’t communicate directly on the subject of the representation with someone you know is represented by counsel. But where does in-house counsel fit in? Is in-house counsel “fair game”
No DQ for violation of no-contact rule, but notes of interview must be turned over, says district court
A federal district court refused last week to disqualify a Connecticut lawyer in a suit against Yale University, even though finding a violation of the state’s version of Model Rule 4.2, the “no contact rule.” Although ruling that disqualification was too extreme a sanction, the court ordered the turnover of interview notes from the
“No contact” rule didn’t bar interview with represented suspect, district court holds
When the government comes knocking during a grand jury investigation, can a G-man interview one of your executives without getting consent from counsel? Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine said “Yes,” and refused to suppress an executive’s statements in the tax fraud case against him, holding that the ex parte chat didn’t violate ethics rules. The case shows how in a federal criminal investigation, an exception to the well-known “no-contact” rule can sweep away its protection.
Continue Reading “No contact” rule didn’t bar interview with represented suspect, district court holds
Lawyers on hot seat after using paralegal to friend opposing party
Two New Jersey lawyers cannot avoid disciplinary charges arising from their use of a paralegal to friend a represented opposing party on Facebook, the state supreme court ruled recently.
Continue Reading Lawyers on hot seat after using paralegal to friend opposing party
More lessons from the trenches: GC’s can face challenges when managers by-pass law department
Here is the second in our series of interviews with general counsel from a variety of organizations, who share their lessons from the trenches. You can read the first installment here.
Deal documentation quandary
What should general counsel do when a manager by-passes the legal department in negotiating transaction terms with another party —