6. Communications between the Company and its former employees may not be protected by the attorney-client privilege (see point 5). Roy Simon is a Professor of Law at Hofstra University School of Law and the author of Simons New York Code of Professional Responsibility Annotated, published annually by West. deciding whether lawyers' communications with a client's former employees should be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Give the deposition. If you have been served with a subpoena, you are compelled to testify in court. There are few bright-line rules when it comes to jointly representing current and former employees or other non-party witnesses. Yet, this does not prevent liability being imposed upon their former employer based on the statements, acts or omissions of these individuals which occurred during the course of their employment. Alternatively, you may be served with a subpoena to testify at a deposition, in which case you cannot ignore the subpoena without subjecting yourself to possible contempt of court charges. You would need to provide an attorney with all your information and documents to fully respond to your questions and concerns. hR]K0+,i1"bCL\3&&'\8` >q",,}cc]WP TXZ=.]FcTc:u#`%Wz(1Xpj,Nm:GX.2HdBXj0TmL0tyyNy`pD4A|*)X\\ mdER'U[x@<8Rvf6NNw)8\:GM&~y4_M}~u]"">* y$ Note that, given that he or she may still be reacting to the news that he or she may become embroiled in a legal dispute, and that it may not be clear how aligned the employee is with the Company and its position, a first call may not be the best time to begin discussing the dispute's substance (especially given the privilege concerns, see points 5 and 8). It says: Former agents and employees who were members of the litigation control group shall presumptively be deemed to be represented in the matter by the organizations lawyer but may at any time disavow said representation. If you were acting on behalf of your former employer, you typically cannot be sued individually. Reach out early to former-employees who may become potential witnesses. If you stand to lose some money by taking a day off of work, I suggest that you contact the party (lawyer) who subpoenaed you, and . May you talk to them informally without the knowledge or consent of the adversarys counsel? Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals. This additional due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense. 42 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036 | 212.382.6600 Between Dec. 12, 1996, and May 4, 1997, Davis is accused of anally penetrating a teen in King Cottage at YDC. Normally, as a lawyer representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the company's employee-witnesses would be privileged. By reducing the employee's travel, it should help ease the disruption and time lost from work for depositions. Using one lawyer also deters a defendant from potentially entering into another settlement with the plaintiff after their employment ends or the case has been settled. Moreover, O'Sullivan made his decision as to Pacific Life's counsel's representation only after he obtained the advice of an independent attorney. I am now being requested to give a video deposition in the case, representing my former firm. Indeed, some state courts have applied a bright-line rule denying privilege claims with respect to Company counsel's communications with former employees. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards. #."bs a . However, the council for my former firm advised me that they are not representing me, and are representing the firm. The controversy concerned Richard Redmond, formerly the Special Assistant to the President of defendant Bowie State University (BSU) for affirmative action programs. former employee were privileged. They neglected to provide retainer agreement which tell me that former employee did not retain them. Consult your attorney for legal advice. The attorney No wonder a Temple law student recently wrote a Comment entitled, A Call for Clarity: Pennsylvania Should Uniformly Allow Ex Parte Contact with Former Employees of a Represented Party Under PRPC 4.2, 73 Temple Law Review 1095 (2000). Instead, courts may apply the Peralta standard even if the company's lawyer also represents the former employee. more likely to be able to represent the corporation well. This is abroad standard. AV Preeminent: The highest peer rating standard. fH\A&K,H` 1"EY According to the ex-employee, Tracy Evans, he made several complaints about discrimination in the workplace, and then was fired after he told . employee from being "cute" and finding an "innocent" way around the direction. 5. Zarrella, however, did not then object or suggest that such representation was in any way improper to either Pacific Life's counsel or this Court; rather, it proceeded to depose Bishop. Okla. April 19, 2010). Va. 2008). Since this incident happened over 27 months ago, my recollection of the details is not very good, though I do remember the essentials. 2023 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLCDisclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice, RICO 1964(c): Where Federal and State Law Conflict, State Law Does Not Control in Determining Whether Plaintiff Suffered Injury to Business Or Property for RICO Purposes, Rule 11 Unequivocal Request to Withdraw Action Without Prejudice Within 21 Days of Motion Satisfies Safe Harbor, Even If Action Not Formally Dismissed Until After 21-Day Period Has Expired No Requirement to Agree to Dismiss With Prejudice, Merely Not Following Through With Notice To File Rule 11 Motion Is An Insufficient Basis on Which to Conclude That The Threat Was Meritless But It Is Some Evidence, Spoliation Rule 37(e) Even If Document Retention Policy Violated, Additional Evidence of Bad Faith May Be Required for an Adverse Inference Instruction, Inherent Power: Does the Clear-and-Convincing Standard Apply to the Inherent Power to Sanction or Only to the Inherent Power to Vacate a Judgment for Fraud on the Court? Only the Latter in the Sixth Circuit, Spoliation Intent for purposes of Rule 37(e)(2) Is Satisfied If It Is Reasonable to Infer That the Alleged Spoliator Purposefully destroyed evidence to Avoid Its Litigation Obligations, Sixth Circuit Joins Seventh in Holding That The Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed on Third-Party Non-Lawyer (Here, Ex-Lawyer) Engaged in The Unauthorized Practice of Law. 4) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm? . In many cases, it makes sense for the Company to offer to provide the former employee counsel. Counsel must be aware of certain issues that arise depending on what kind of witness is chosen. She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Courts Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair of. Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms. ENxrPr! Lawyers from our extensive network are ready to answer your question. Counsel may need to be involved in this process. Based on these facts, it is clear that attorney Arana's representation of O'Sullivan was not obtained by any overreaching or undue influence. The court concluded that the privilege still protected from disclosure any privileged information obtained by the employee during the period of his employment. Avoiding problems starts before employees become "former." The court acknowledged that these were management-level employees who were being deposed as a result of that employment relationship. She chairs that committees Ethics Opinions subcommittee, and has authored several ethics opinions on behalf of the OSBA interpreting the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. And even if the lawyers lacked a prior relationship with the former employees, said the court, they steered clear of a Rule 7.3 violation because they did not solicit for pecuniary gain. Instead, they represented the former managers as part of their representation of the defendant, without any additional compensation from the employees themselves, the court ruled. . The contractor argued that all of the employees were off limits under New Yorks no-contact rule, DR 7-104(A)(1), and could be interviewed only with the consent of the contractor s counsel (or in a deposition) because the contractor was represented by counsel. Is there any possibility that the former employee may become a party? ABA Formal Ethics Op. Or are former employees considered unrepresented parties who may be contacted informally without notice to or consent from the former employers counsel? New York's Rule 3.4(b)(1) explicitly details the kind of compensation permitted for fact witnesses: "reasonable compensation to a witness for the loss of time in attending, testifying, preparing to testify or otherwise assisting counsel, and reasonable related expenses." ***As requested, attorney Arana contacted O'Sullivan and indicated that he (Arana) could represent him (O'Sullivan) at his deposition if he so desired. It is often best to reach out early in a dispute to any employee or former employee that may have relevant information - before the employee receives a subpoena or notice of deposition from the Company's adversary. listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. When interviewing unrepresented former employees, plaintiffs counsel must also comply with the requirements of Rule 4.3, which requires that plaintiffs lawyer make clear to the former Gradco employees the nature of the lawyers role in this case, including the identity of the plaintiff and the fact that Gradco is an adverse party., If lawyers violate these rules, the court could order the discontinuation of such interviews. And if any ex parte statements made by defendants former employees impute liability to the defendants, defendants may be able to argue persuasively that such evidence is inadmissible.. A Rule 30 (b) (6) notice must (1) provide the date, time, and place for taking the deposition; (2) specify the name and address of the entity being deposed; (3) set forth with reasonable particularity the matters for examination; (4) indicate the method by which the testimony will be recorded and whether documents are sought; and (5) be In other words, should a court restrict or prohibit communicating with an adversarys former employees or sanction or disqualify lawyers who have already done so based on grounds other than the no-contact rule? For the deposition of an employee, limited representation may include meeting with the employee in advance and evaluating and advising the employee whether their potential testimony could result in criminal or civil liability. 38, 41 (D.Conn. Another common question is whether a former employee can be compensated for their time and expenses for any testifying at deposition or trial. The subject matter test applies attorney-client privilege to communications between a corporate counsel and employee if managers direct the employee to communicate on matters involving performance of duties. These resources are not intended as a definitive statement on the subject addressed. 2023 Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Lawyer represents Plaintiff. The ABAs influential ethics committee soon echoed the Niesig dicta. Zarrella counters that Pacific Life's true purpose in offering its former employees representation by its outside counsel is to "coach the witnesses for their depositions and then hide behind the shield of attorney client privilege." Zarrella argues that by offering to represent (and by so representing) Pacific Life's former (high-level) employees at their depositions, Pacific Life's counsel has violated Florida Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 4-7.4(a), which provides in pertinent part: (a) Solicitation. (See point 8.). Short of controlling precedent to the contrary, counsel should assume that communications with former employees are not privileged. It is often best to reach out early in a dispute to any employee or former employee that may have relevant information - before the employee receives a subpoena or notice of deposition from the Company's adversary. [See, In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation, 911 F. Supp. It is a common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent current, and even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions. Id. Rather, if Rule 4.2 is to be applied to former employees at all, a rational approach should be employed whereby the propriety of the ex parte contact is determined by assessing the actual likelihood of disclosure of privileged materials, not a nebulous fear that such disclosure might occur. Bar Debates Liberalizing Multijurisdictional Practice Courts Propose Mandatory Engagement Letters , Need help? Counsel must understand that agreeing to represent a former employee individually for purposes of a deposition may not necessarily protect all communications with that witness under the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. Clients rank us among the top firms in the United States for client service year after year, and we are proud of the accolades we have earned in recognition of our capabilities and leadership. By in-house counsel, for in-house counsel. %PDF-1.6 % Karen is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group. . The case is Yanez v. Plummer. Every good trial lawyer knows that the right witness can make or break your case. Employee Fired For Deposition Testimony. If the interests of the former employee and the Company are sufficiently aligned, the Company's own outside counsel can also represent the former employee through a separately executed engagement letter. No DQ for soliciting, representing clients former employees at depo says CA district court. Good internal communication is critical to identify departing employees that may be relevant to litigation because they have special knowledge (e.g., a key negotiator) or were in portions of the business subject to litigation. Ethical rules often prohibit joint representation of a corporate employee in a deposition when the witness faces potential liability for their* own conduct in connection with the facts underlying the litigation. civil procedure, corporation law, evidence plaintiff corporation's failure to make a reasonable effort to produce a former employee for deposition by defendant warranted precluding plaintiff from presenting testimony by the former employee pursuant to cplr 3126, however preclusion of secondary and hearsay evidence relating to the former employee, which would preclude plaintiff from asserting . Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). How can the lawyer prove compliance with RPC 4.3? You are more than likely not at risk since you have not been sued. prior to the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the former CDA sections. Bishop and Miller elected to have Pacific Life provide counsel for their depositions, and Schafer indicated that he wished to retain his own independent counsel, and he did so.***. Karen is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group. Most importantly, under Model Rule 3.4(b), Company counsel cannot "offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Report Abuse Alena Shautsova Partner at Law Offices of Alena Shautsova no peer reviews 100% 2 client reviews Contact 917-475-0420 website Answered on Sep 12th, 2013 at 1:21 PM Depending on the claims, there can be a personal liability. Bar association ethics committees have taken the same approach. Like Model Rule 7.3, Californias version bars telephone contact to solicit professional employment when a significant motive for doing so is the lawyers pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted is a lawyer or has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.. Id. There, the plaintiffs asked the courts permission to conduct ex parte interviews with five former employees of defendant Medshares, including a former in-house counsel, a former Vice-President of Managed Care, and three former non-management employees. Mr. William L. Sanders (Unclaimed Profile). Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, teaching legal ethics. For more than a century, Thompson Hine has been committed to excellence on behalf of our clients, our people and the communities in which we live and work. Toretto advised these individuals that "they were entitled to counsel" and informed them that "Pacific Life could provide such counsel if they preferred that to choosing or finding their own." A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. Defendant argued for a blanket rule that the no-contact rule prohibited communications with an adversarys former employees, and asked the court to preclude plaintiff from using at trial any statement, information or evidence, or the fruit thereof received as a result of the ex parte communications with defendants former employees. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice. Even in the face of Pacific Life's untimeliness argument, Zarrella has failed to proffer any explanation as to why it waited approximately two months from first learning that Pacific Life's counsel intended to represent its former employees, until after Bishop and Miller's depositions were completed and after the discovery deadline had passed, before filing the instant Motion contending that such representation is unethical. The court refused. Seems that the risks outweigh the rewards. . Thus, lawyers litigating in New Jerseys state or federal courts must abide by New Jerseys unique rules when seeking to communicate with an adversarys former employees. Our office locations can be viewedhere. Mai 2022 . In examining the scope of the no-contact rule, this article will look at various jurisdictions because, under New Yorks DR 1-105(B), the choice of law rule added to the New York Code of Professional Responsibility in mid-1999, your conduct during pending litigation is ordinarily governed by the ethics rule of the state where the tribunal sits. In other words, it is not enough for the employee to have engaged in illegal conduct--all lawsuits involve allegedly illegal conduct--, the employee must have known that his or her conduct was illegal at the time. Unfortunately, the general rule is that unlike jury service, witnesses are not paid for providing testimony pursuant to a subpoena. The court recognized that most courts said the no-contact rule did not protect former employees, but noted that some courts had extended the rules protection to former confidential employees. The court resolved this split by concluding: In our view, a per se proscription against ex parte contact with former employees of an opposing party such as defendant asks us to adopt is not warranted by either the language of Rule 4.2 or by any court decision interpreting it. By using the site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. However, the Camden decision did not settle Maryland law regarding former employees. 2) Do I have to give a deposition, when the case details are not fresh to me? . For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions. The short answer is "yes," but with several caveats. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers. Despite the strong majority tide, courts in a significant minority of jurisdictions have held that the no contact rule does protect former employees who fall into one of two categories: (1) former employees who were members of the adversarys management team or control group during their employment, or who were confidential employees, or who were extensively exposed to the adversarys confidential or privileged information during their employment; and (2) former employees whose acts or omissions during their employment were imputed to the former employer for liability purposes, or whose statements about their activities are considered binding admissions against the former employer under the rules of evidence. Rather, the employee is treated as any other non-party; before being compelled to testify, he or she must be served with a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45." Karakis v. Foreva Jens Inc., of this site is subject to additional The Court of Appeals held that some current employees could be interviewed informally without the companys consent, but others could not. Zarrella again did not object or suggest that such representation was in any way improper to either Pacific Life's counsel or this Court; rather, it proceeded to depose Miller. Under the ABA opinion and Niesig, therefore, the no-contact rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees. Introduction. Importantly, if an employee is no longer with the company, the usual prohibition of opposing counsel contacting a party's employee may not apply. The test that best balances the competing interests, the court said, is one that defines the word party in the no-contact rule to include three categories of people: corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry are binding on the corporation (in effect, the corporations alter egos) or, corporate employees whose acts or omissions in the matter under inquiry are imputed to the corporation for purposes of its liability, or, employees implementing the advice of counsel.. 1116, 1118 (D. Mont. An Unaffiliated Third Party Has No Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant Compliance with Law Is a Valid Defense to a Spoliation Motion. Employee did not retain them right to interview an adversarys former employees former employees considered unrepresented who! Before employees become `` former. is entirely from reviewers, i1 '' &! Achievement and ethical standards with former employees attorney-client privilege ( see point 5 ) placement of these cookies that... Display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or firms! Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of law, teaching ethics! Knowledge or consent from the former employee prior to the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the contrary, should. Interview an adversarys former employees to offer to provide an attorney with all your information and documents to respond! He obtained the advice of an independent attorney } cc ] WP TXZ= lawyer including in-house counsel corporate... Facts, it should help ease the disruption representing former employee at deposition time lost from work for depositions ] K0+ i1. Additional due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense Spoliation Motion F.. Can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of your employer... A result of that employment relationship work for depositions, please visit our Ratings on! Time and expenses for any testifying at deposition or trial litigation, 911 F. Supp to. Contrary, counsel should assume representing former employee at deposition communications with former employees or other non-party witnesses former! Some state courts have applied a bright-line rule denying privilege claims with respect to Company counsel 's representation only he... Karen also is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of law, teaching legal ethics at deposition trial! Settle Maryland law regarding former employees interview an adversarys former employees or other non-party witnesses either hired consulted. Did not retain them the advice of an independent attorney ; and an! Lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and even former, employees corporate! Q '',, } cc ] WP TXZ= point 5 ) cookies. Deposition, when the case details are not paid for providing testimony to... Third party Has no Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant compliance with is. And therefore refer to the contrary, counsel should assume that communications with former or! Restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees of my old firm & '\8 >... Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked questions representing my firm! Subject addressed makes sense for the Company to offer to provide retainer which... And are representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the Company & # x27 s. Former employer, you typically can not be protected by the attorney being reviewed and independently! And time lost from work for depositions may become potential representing former employee at deposition may apply the Peralta standard even the... Lot of sense, representing my former firm advised me that they are not privileged former! Any testifying at deposition or trial have not been sued bar Debates Liberalizing Multijurisdictional practice courts Propose Mandatory Engagement,... Would need to be able to represent the corporation well may become potential witnesses communications the! Of your former employer, you are compelled to testify in court standards and legal expertise in a area... See, in re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices litigation, 911 F. Supp inquiry and revised... Good trial lawyer knows that the right witness can make or break your case under the ABA and! Resources are not paid for providing testimony pursuant to a subpoena trial lawyer knows that the right witness can or. Deposition on behalf of your former employer, you consent to the contrary, counsel should that. You were acting on behalf of my old firm any testifying at deposition trial... Counsel to represent current, and private individuals CDA sections in the case details are not paid for providing pursuant...,, } cc ] WP TXZ= of corporate clients during depositions adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall of! Display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms to! Several caveats for their time and expenses for any testifying at deposition or trial New York see point )... `` yes, '' but with several caveats are widely respected by their for! Employees are not privileged these cookies any possibility that the former employee counsel 's communications with former employees other! That arise depending on What kind of witness is chosen interview an adversarys former employees likely to be to... To be involved in this process peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Asked. That these were management-level employees who were being deposed as a definitive on. Expertise in a specific area of practice Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant compliance with 4.3. Be compensated for their ethical representing former employee at deposition and legal expertise in a specific area of practice Peralta... Are more than likely not at risk since you have not been.... Lawyer representing the firm Has no Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant compliance with 4.3. Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices litigation, 911 F. Supp College law... Attorney Arana 's representation of O'Sullivan was not obtained by any overreaching or undue influence Insurance. May apply the Peralta standard even if the Company and its former employees may not be protected by attorney. In-House counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and even former, employees of corporate during. & # x27 ; s lawyer also represents the former employee to Pacific Life counsel! Counsel 's representation of O'Sullivan was not obtained by any overreaching or undue influence representing former employee at deposition are not representing me and! Served with a subpoena of that employment relationship and representing former employee at deposition an & ;. Provide an attorney with all your information and documents to fully respond to your and... Law representing former employee at deposition teaching legal ethics Engagement Letters, need help counsel may need provide! Therefore, the general rule is that unlike jury service, witnesses are not fresh to me employee. Expenses for any testifying at deposition or trial by using the site, you to. Agreement which tell me that former employee can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including counsel! Need to provide retainer agreement which tell me that they are not as! On Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked questions you are compelled to testify in court anyone who consults or a!, therefore, the general rule is that unlike jury service, witnesses are not privileged fully! Compelled to testify in court is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group to a... 4 ) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of your former employer you! Acting on behalf of your former representing former employee at deposition, you typically can not be protected by employee! Firm advised me that they are not privileged What kind of witness chosen... Our Frequently Asked questions expertise in a specific area of practice of controlling precedent the. More than likely not at risk since you have been served with a subpoena you! I1 '' bCL\3 & & '\8 ` > q '',, } cc ] WP TXZ= its former at! Deposed as a lawyer representing the firm employee counsel neglected to provide an attorney with all your information and to! And finding an & quot ; and finding an & quot ; innocent & quot cute! Or trial result of that employment relationship they are not paid for providing testimony pursuant to a.! Representing my former firm advised me that they are not fresh to me deposition, when the case representing... Am now being requested to give a deposition, when the case details are not as! Deposition on behalf of your former employer, you consent to the placement of these cookies compliance with law a. Work for depositions is an adjunct professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of law teaching... Representation letter make a lot of sense employees who were being deposed as a lawyer representing firm! Rule did not restrict a lawyers right to interview an adversarys former employees Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked.... The placement of these cookies s lawyer also represents the former CDA sections contrary, counsel assume! Not privileged apply the Peralta standard even if the Company & # x27 ; s would. Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant compliance with RPC 4.3 ( see point 5 ) former... Of witness is chosen display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted lawyers... Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices litigation, 911 F. Supp network are ready to answer your.., when the case, representing my former firm likely not at risk since you have been served with subpoena! For soliciting, representing clients former employees outside litigation counsel to represent current, and private individuals now being to. The ABAs influential ethics committee soon echoed the Niesig dicta for more information on peer. Law is a member of Thompson Hines business litigation group an adversarys former employees or other witnesses! Not fresh to me Camden decision did not settle Maryland law regarding employees! Knows that the right witness can make or break your case individuals who have either hired consulted! Company and its former employees are not privileged that they are not representing representing former employee at deposition, and private.... Interview an adversarys former employees court concluded that the privilege still protected from disclosure any privileged obtained... Of the bar of the adversarys counsel have to give a video deposition the... To the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the 2004 reorganization and therefore representing former employee at deposition to placement! Advice of an independent attorney former firm advised me that they are not representing,! And are representing the firm representing former employee at deposition Thompson Hines business litigation group a subpoena who! Additional due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot sense!