Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Corporate CounselorKickerFeaturesTopicsLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Parameters of the Witness No Contact Rule

By Lawrence S. Spiegel and Deborah M. Chow
March 29, 2011

As Aristotle recognized in approximately 350 BCE, “all men by nature desire to know.” The passage of time has not diminished this pursuit of knowledge, particularly by attorneys zealously representing clients. Attorneys recognize that obtaining facts efficiently and accurately is frequently outcome determinative. Yet, there are ethical limitations on how attorneys may obtain information that, if transgressed, can render the evidence inadmissible and subject the attorney to discipline and other adverse consequences. This article articulates some of the common issues that a lawyer should consider under Model Rule 4.2, but the manner in which Model Rule 4.2 is applied across different jurisdictions may vary. See Ellen J. Messing and James S. Weliky, Contacting Employees of an Adverse Corporate Party: A Plaintiff's Attorney's View, 2008 A.L.I.'A.B.A. Continuing Legal Educ., Advanced Emp. L. & Litig. 1527. Before engaging in potentially restricted communications, it is recommended that you familiarize yourself with how the ethics committees and courts have applied Model Rule 4.2 in your local jurisdiction.

One important restraint on counsel's information-gathering pursuits is reflected in the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 (“Model Rule 4.2″), the so-called “no-contact rule,” which prohibits a lawyer from communicating with a person whom the lawyer knows to be represented by counsel absent that counsel's consent. This article addresses some of the common issues and questions that may arise when applying Model Rule 4.2 in practice.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.