Can a lawyer interview a represented corporation's former employees and former managers without the corporation's lawyer's consent?

Plain-English summary

A firm representing plaintiffs in a civil action against a corporation wished to conduct ex parte interviews with the defendant corporation's former employees, including some former managers and some whose acts or omissions might be imputed to the corporation, over the corporation's objection. The question was whether Rule 4-4.2 barred contacting these former personnel except with the corporation's attorney's permission.

The committee concluded that the answer is no as to former managers and other former employees who have not maintained ties to the corporation and have not sought or consented to representation by the corporation's attorney. The committee read Rule 4-4.2 (substantially the same as DR 7-104(A)(1)) as prohibiting ex parte contact with current persons having managerial responsibility and others whose acts may be imputed to the organization, but found that neither the rule nor its comment squarely addressed former personnel, and that to the extent the comment implied the rule applies to them it was contrary to the interpretation of ethics committees. A former manager or employee who has not maintained ties is no longer part of the corporate entity and not subject to the corporation's attorney's control; if such a person is represented by his own attorney in the matter, that attorney's permission must be obtained.

The committee supported its conclusion with the consensus of ethics committees in many states and with Wright v. Group Health Hospital, in which the Washington Supreme Court held that because former employees cannot speak for the corporation, the rule does not apply, and found no reason to distinguish former employees who witnessed an event from those whose conduct caused it. The committee also noted that under both federal and Florida evidence rules, a statement by an agent is admissible against the party only if made during the existence of the agency relationship, so a former employee's statements would not be admissible against the corporation. The committee cautioned that the attorney should not inquire into matters within the corporation's attorney-client privilege. The opinion's editorial note adds that it does not address the possibility of disqualification in litigation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here. The opinion's note also points to later authority on disqualification, including H.B.A. Management, Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz, 693 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1997), and Rentclub v. Transamerica.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer interview a represented corporation's former employees without corporate counsel's consent?

A: The opinion concluded that a lawyer may contact former managers and other former employees who have not maintained ties to the corporation and are not represented by the corporation's attorney, without that attorney's consent.

Q: What if a former employee has his own lawyer?

A: The opinion concluded that if a former manager or employee is represented in the matter by his personal attorney, the permission of that attorney must be obtained before ex parte contact.

Q: Are there limits on what the lawyer may ask?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that the attorney should not inquire into matters within the corporation's attorney-client privilege, such as what a former manager told the corporation's attorney about the subject of the representation.

Q: Why doesn't the no-contact rule protect former employees?

A: The opinion concluded that a former employee no longer speaks for the corporation, and that under the evidence rules a former employee's statement is not admissible against the corporation because it is not made during the existence of the agency relationship.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 4-4.2 (Model Rule 4.2; predecessor DR 7-104(A)(1)) on communication with represented persons, applied to an organizational party. The committee read the rule's organizational reach to cover current managerial and imputable-conduct personnel but not former personnel who have severed ties, drawing support from out-of-state ethics opinions and from Wright v. Group Health Hospital and the federal and Florida evidence rules on agent admissions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Fla. Rule 4-4.2 / Model Rule 4.2; CPR DR 7-104(A)(1) (communication with represented persons)

Statutes:

• Fla. Stat. 90.803(18)(e) (Florida Evidence Code); Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)

Cases:

• Wright v. Group Health Hospital, 691 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1984), former employees and the no-contact rule
• (Editorial note) H.B.A. Management, Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz, 693 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1997); Rentclub v. Transamerica, 811 F. Supp. 651 (M.D. Fla. 1992)

Other opinions cited:

• Alaska 88-3; Colorado 69; Illinois 85-12; Los Angeles Co. 369; Maryland 86-13; Massachusetts 82-7; Michigan CI-597; N.Y. City 80-46; N.Y. County 528; Virginia 533; Wisconsin E-82-10

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 88-4: Contacting an Opposing Party
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 09-1: Contacting Agency Staff
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 90-4: No-Contact Rule and DOJ Lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-88-14/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-88-14-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 88-14
March 7, 1989
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

A plaintiff's attorney may communicate with former managers and former employees of a defendant corporation without seeking and obtaining consent of corporation's attorney.

Note: This opinion was approved by the Board of Governors at its March 1989 meeting. While opinion 88-14 permits certain direct contacts with former employees of a represented corporation, it does not purport to address the possibility of disqualification in litigation. See H.B.A. Management, Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz, 693 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1997). But see, Rentclub v. Transamerica, 811 F.Supp. 651 (M.D. Fla. 1992), aff'd 43 F.3d 1439 (11th Cir. 1995).

RPC: 4-4.2; ABA Model 4.2
CPR: DR 7-104(A)(1)
Opinions: Alaska 88-3, Colorado 69, Illinois 85-12, Los Angeles Co. 369, Maryland 86-13, Massachusetts 82-7, Michigan CI-597, N.Y. City 80-46, N.Y. County 528, Virginia 533, Wisconsin E-82-10
Case: Wright v. Group Health Hospital, 691 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1984)
Statutes: F.S. 90.803(18)(e); Florida Evidence Code
Misc: Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)

The inquiring attorney's law firm represents the plaintiffs in a civil action against a corporation. The attorneys wish to have ex parte interviews with former employees of the defendant corporation who were employed by the corporation during the period when the actions or decisions on which the suit is based occurred. The former employees may include some who had managerial responsibilities and some whose acts or omissions during their employment might be imputed to the corporation for purposes of civil liability. As is usually the case, the defendant corporation objects to ex parte contacts with its former employees.

The issue is whether Rule 4-4.2, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, proscribes the plaintiffs' attorneys from contacting former managers and other former employees of the defendant corporation except with the permission of the corporation's attorneys. As regards former managers and other former employees who have not maintained any ties with the corporation—who are no longer part of the corporate entity — and who have not sought or consented to be represented in the matter by the corporation's attorneys, the answer must be in the negative.

Rule 4-4.2 is substantially the same as its predecessors in the Code of Professional Responsibility (DR 7-104(A)(1)) and the earlier Canons of Professional Ethics (Canon 9). (The American Bar Association's "code comparison" for Model Rule 4.2 states that the rule is "substantially identical" to DR 7-104(A)(1).)

The rule forbids a lawyer to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented in the matter unless the lawyer obtains the permission of the person's counsel. The comment to the rule states that in the case of organizations (including corporations), the rule prohibits ex parte communications with "persons having a managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization and with any other person whose act or omission in connection with that 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." The comment further states that if an agent or employee of the organization is represented by his or her own counsel in the matter, then it is the consent of that lawyer—not the organization's lawyer—that must be obtained.

Nothing in Rule 4-4.2 or the comment states whether the rule applies to communications with former managers and other former employees. To the extent that the comment implies that the rule does apply to these individuals, it is contrary to ethics committees' interpretation of the rule.

Rule 4-4.2 cannot reasonably be construed as requiring a lawyer to obtain permission of a corporate party's attorney in order to communicate with former managers or other former employees of the corporation unless such individuals have in fact consented to or requested representation by the corporation's attorney. A former manager or other employee who has not maintained ties to the corporation (as a litigation consultant, for example) is no longer part of the corporate entity and therefore is not subject to the control or authority of the corporation's attorney. In many cases it may be true that the interests of the former manager or employee are not allied with the interests of the corporation. In such cases the conflict of interests would preclude the corporation's attorney from actually representing the individual and therefore would preclude the corporation's attorney from controlling access to the individual. As the comment indicates with regard to current employees, if a former manager or former employee is represented in the matter by his personal attorney, permission of that attorney must be obtained for ex parte contacts, including contacts by the corporation's attorney.

A former manager or employee is no longer in a position to speak for the corporation. Further, under both the federal and the Florida rules of evidence, statements that might be made by a former manager or other former employee during an ex parte interview would not be admissible against the corporation. Both Rule 801(d)(2)(D), Federal Rules of Evidence, and Section 90.803(18)(e), Florida Evidence Code, provide that a statement by an agent or servant of a party is admissible against the party if it concerns a matter within the scope of the agency or employment and is made during the existence of the agency or employment relationship.

This Committee has not previously had occasion to issue an opinion on the question of communicating with former managers and employees but, as indicated above, bar ethics committees in a number of states have done so. The clear consensus is that former managers and other former employees are not within the scope of the rule against ex parte contacts. Alaska Bar Opinion 88-3 (6/7/88) (Former employees are no longer part of corporate entity and no longer can act or speak on behalf of corporation; opposing lawyer therefore may contact former employees, including former members of corporation's control group who dealt with subject matter of litigation, but may not inquire into privileged communications); Colorado Bar Opinion 69 (Revised) (6/20/87) (Former employee cannot bind corporation as matter of law; lawyer may interview opposing party's former employees with regard to all matters except communications within corporation's attorney-client privilege); Illinois Bar Opinion 85-12 (4/4/86) (Former employees, including those who were part of corporation's control group, may be contacted without permission of corporate counsel; direct communications with former control group employees may elicit information adverse to corporation, but that direct contact no more deprives corporation of benefit of counsel than does direct communication with any potential witness); Los Angeles County, Calif., Bar Opinion 369 (11/23/77) (Although ethical dangers may be posed if rule prohibiting ex parte contacts is not extended to former controlling employees, no authority is found to support such extension); Maryland Bar Opinion 86-13 (8/30/85) (Lawyer may communicate with former employee of adverse corporate party if former employee is not represented by counsel).

Also, Massachusetts Bar Opinion 82-7 (6/23/82) (Lawyer may communicate with former employees of corporate defendant regarding matters within scope of their employment; former employees enjoy no current agency relationship that is being served by corporate counsel's representation); Michigan Bar Opinion CI-597 (12/22/80) (Plaintiff's attorney may communicate with prospective witness, who is former employee of corporate defendant, on subject matter of representation if employee is unrepresented); New York City Bar Opinion 80-46 (Former employees are no longer part of corporate entity and may be contacted ex parte); New York County Bar Opinion 528 (1965) (Although direct communication with any current manager or employee of defendant corporation is improper, restriction does not apply to communications with former employees); Virginia Bar Opinion 533 (12/16/83) (Lawyer may communicate directly with former officers, directors and employees of adversary corporation on subject of pending litigation unless lawyer has reason to know those witnesses are represented by counsel); Wisconsin Bar Opinion E-82-10 (12/82) (Lawyer may contact former employee of opposing party to obtain material information even though former employee was managing agent, if former employee has severed all ties with corporation and therefore is not in position to commit corporation).

See Wright v. Group Health Hospital, 691 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1984). In Wright, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that because former employees cannot possibly speak for a defendant corporation, the rule against communicating with adverse parties does not apply. The court found no reason to distinguish between former employees who witnessed an event and those whose act or omission caused the event. The court said the purpose of the communication rule is not to protect a corporate party from revelation of prejudicial facts, but rather to preclude interviewing of employees who have authority to bind the corporation.

As stated above, it is ethically permissible for the inquiring attorney to contact former managers and other former employees of the opposing party without obtaining permission from the corporation's attorney unless those former employees are in fact represented by the corporation's attorney. But as indicated by some of the ethics committees cited above, the attorney should not inquire into matters that are within the corporation's attorney-client privilege (e.g., asking a former manager to relate what he had told the corporation's attorney concerning the subject matter of the representation).