道德意见287
Ex Parte Contact With Former Employees of Party-Opponents
靠谱的滚球平台可以在未取得对方当事人同意的情况下，联系对方当事人的无代表前雇员，而不论该前雇员在对方组织中以前担任的职务. Prior to any substantive communication, 靠谱的滚球平台必须向前雇员披露靠谱的滚球平台的身份，以及靠谱的滚球平台所代表的一方是与前雇员的前雇主为敌的事实. 在沟通过程中，靠谱的滚球平台不得索取对方当事人的保密信息.
适用的规则
- Rule 4.2 (Communication Between Lawyer and Opposing Parties)
- Rule 4.3 (Dealing with Unrepresented Person)
- Rule 4.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Parties)
Inquiry
询问者是一名靠谱的滚球平台，代表客户对某公司提起诉讼. He has asked the Committee whether, 在什么情况下, 他可以在未事先征得对方同意的情况下与对方的前雇员联系.
Discussion
District of Columbia Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 (a)一般禁止靠谱的滚球平台与已知在该事项上由另一名靠谱的滚球平台代理的一方之间就代理主题进行通信, 除非靠谱的滚球平台事先得到对方靠谱的滚球平台的同意或法律授权这样做. The Rule does not expressly address the propriety of ex parte contact between a lawyer and a former employee of a party-opponent. The provisions and commentary of Rule 4.2, however, lead to the conclusion that ex parte 靠谱的滚球平台和政党对手的前雇员之间的接触是允许的, subject to observance of certain safeguards.
值得注意的是，规则4.第2条并未禁止靠谱的滚球平台与对方非党派雇员之间的所有通信. Rather, 只有与有权约束对方的非党派雇员的通信才被禁止. 最后，规则4.2在相关部分规定:
(b) During the course of representing a client, 靠谱的滚球平台可以在未经对方靠谱的滚球平台同意的情况下，与对方的非当事人雇员就代理事宜进行沟通. However, prior to communicating with any such nonparty employee, 靠谱的滚球平台必须向雇员披露靠谱的滚球平台的身份，以及靠谱的滚球平台代表对雇员的雇主提出索赔的一方的事实.
(c)就本条而言, the term "party" includes any person, including an employee of a party organization, 谁有权力约束一个党组织，使其与通讯所涉及的代表相联系.
D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2 (1996).1 对规则4的注释[3].2 elucidates the meaning of "person . . . who has the authority to bind a party organization,规定“该规则并不禁止靠谱的滚球平台与有权就代理的基础事项约束该组织的雇员进行沟通，如果他们也无权就代理本身作出有约束力的决定。. 因此，靠谱的滚球平台可以不事先通知该组织的靠谱的滚球平台而与这些人联系.因此，规则4.第2条禁止仅与持有或行使决定权力或权威的政党对手的雇员沟通, 通过行为或承认, the organization’s position(s) in the matter.
Rule 4.2 effectively memorialized the view expressed in Opinion 129. In that Opinion—decided under DR 7-104, the predecessor to Rule 4.2 .本委员会发现，禁止与敌对方沟通并没有禁止与在诉讼方面不能约束组织的现任雇员接触. See D.C. 靠谱的滚球平台公会法律道德通讯. Op. No. 129 (1983). 意见书129, 在此之前见第80号意见, 我们注意到有几项政策支持禁止与敌对方接触:
(1) the presumed imbalance of skill between a lawyer and a layman, giving one an unfair advantage over the other; (2) the risk that an uncounseled party will make admissions or concessions or reach judgments from which his lawyer could protect him; and (3) the risk that a lawyer might be compelled to become a witness in a case or forced to choose between advancing his client’s interests and not overreaching in communicating with an unprotected adverse party.
双方意见, 我们平衡了这些政策与广泛的政策，即诉讼当事人应该有权获得所有相关的, 非特权信息 regarding a matter and, 衍生地, 靠谱的滚球平台应该被允许尽可能快速和廉价地找到事实. We found that the potential dangers of ex parte 广泛禁止的诉讼当事人的额外负担超过了接触 ex parte contacts with all employees of an adverse party. 这种解释后来体现在规则4的狭隘限制中.2.
A similar approach is warranted for former 组织员工. Indeed, neither the text nor the underlying policies of Rule 4.2 provide a basis for extending its prohibition to former employees. 因为前雇员, 一般来说, cannot bind the organization by decisionmaking, by conduct, or by admission with respect to a pending or prospective matter, Rule 4.2不禁止 ex parte 与这些人的接触. 前雇员可能拥有对其前雇主不利的信息, 或者可能从事了给雇主带来潜在责任的行为, 这是历史事实吗. 事实并非如此, 没有更多的, 将这些前雇员置于以规则4所设想的方式约束组织的位置.2.
与此方法一致, 大多数考虑过这个问题的州和联邦法院得出的结论是 ex parte contact with former employees of a party opponent is permissible. See, e.g.斯宾塞v. Steinman, 179 F.R.D. 484, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1998); H.B.A. 管理公司., v. 施瓦兹遗产, 693 So. 2d 541, 543-46(佛罗里达州. 1997); Aiken v. Business and Industry Health Group, Inc., 885 F. Supp. 1474, 1478-79 (D. Kan. 1995); 美国诉. 西部电气有限公司.[j] .地球物理学报，1990,vol . 1, vol . 1.D.C. Feb. 28, 1990) (interpreting Model Rule 4.2); Wright v. 团体健康医院, 691 P.2d 564, 569(华盛顿州. 1984). The ABA has also interpreted Model Rule 4.允许;允许 ex parte 与前雇员的联系. See ABA正式Op. 91-359 (1991).
Consideration of the policies underlying Rule 4.2 supports the conclusion that lawyers may make ex parte contact with unrepresented former employees of party-opponents. As the ABA noted in Formal Opinion 95-396 (1995), Rule 4.2 is not designed to protect against disclosure of prejudicial facts. Instead, 该规则旨在保护靠谱的滚球平台与当事人之间的关系，防止当事人受到法律约束的伤害 ex parte disclosures. Since a principal purpose of Rule 4.2 is to foster and protect the lawyer-client relationship, not to restrict the flow of relevant, 非特权信息, 规则四解释.2 to forbid ex parte 与前雇员的联系 would require parties to spend more time, money, 利用正式的发现来获取原本可以通过非正式方式获得的信息. Such an expansive reading of Rule 4.第2条将使事实收集过程负担过重，而不能保护规则所寻求保障的任何合法利益.
At the same time, a lawyer does not have 全权委托 关于与政党对手的前雇员沟通的范围. 这种通信中最令人担忧的是，前雇员可能知道特权信息，而且, 没有靠谱的滚球平台在场, 他们可能倾向于向对方靠谱的滚球平台透露这一信息.2 这种担忧是严重的，靠谱的滚球平台在与政党对手的前雇员沟通时，不得索取合理知道的信息，或者靠谱的滚球平台合理地应该知道的信息，这些信息应受法律或既定证据特权的保护而不被披露.3 我们根据规则4得出这个结论.4, 它要求靠谱的滚球平台避免使用“侵犯[第三方]合法权利的证据获取方法”。.这些权利包括前雇主保护其特权信息不被披露的权利.4
为了减少特权信息泄露的可能性 ex parte communication or the occurrence of other hazards that Rule 4.2是为了防止, 靠谱的滚球平台必须在一开始就披露靠谱的滚球平台的身份，以及靠谱的滚球平台在未决或可能的诉讼中代表对前雇员的前雇主不利的一方. 对规则4的注释[3].2 states that it is preferable to give this notice in writing. Rule 4.3通过要求靠谱的滚球平台采取积极的步骤来避免误解，并确保前雇员正确理解靠谱的滚球平台在此事中的作用，从而加强了这种保护.
我只想说, 靠谱的滚球平台在与政党对手的前雇员沟通时应谨慎行事. 某些前雇员可能会持续参与寻求联系的事项, 或者他们可能订婚了, on the basis of their knowledge and experience, 就该事项与组织管理层或法律顾问协商. Of course, 如果前雇员在这件事上由他们自己的靠谱的滚球平台代表, 禁止未经该靠谱的滚球平台同意进行通信的禁令适用，除非该通信得到法律授权.
Conclusion
靠谱的滚球平台可以在未经一方当事人同意的情况下与对方当事人未被代理的前雇员进行沟通. At the outset, the lawyer must make the disclosures required by Rule 4.2. 在整个沟通过程中，靠谱的滚球平台必须遵守规则4的规定.3 and 4.4.
Inquiry No. 98-7-22
通过:1998年10月20日
发布日期:1999年1月19日
1. D.C. has adopted a unique version of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2. 示范规则, in force and effect in a majority of states, does not contain sections (b) and (c), providing only that “[I]n representing a client, 靠谱的滚球平台不得就代理事项与靠谱的滚球平台知道在该事项中由另一靠谱的滚球平台代理的当事人沟通, 除非靠谱的滚球平台得到另一位靠谱的滚球平台的同意或法律授权.参见ABA正式Op. 91-59(1991)(规则4.第2条禁止靠谱的滚球平台与对方公司的雇员接触，如果雇员(a)代表雇主-公司负有“管理责任”, 或(b)其行为或承认与潜在沟通靠谱的滚球平台代表的主题有关的事项可归咎于公司的人, 或(c)其“陈述可构成公司的承认”.)
2. See, e.g.Zachair, Ltd. v. Driggs, 965 F. Supp. 741 (D. Md. 1997)， aff 'd, 141 F.3d 1162(第4卷. 1998) (disqualifying counsel for, inter alia, violating Maryland Rule 4.2 by engaging in ex parte contact with the former general counsel of a corporate defendant whom counsel knew or should have known possessed substantial privileged information); Camden v. 马里兰州，华氏910度. Supp. 1115 (D. Md. 1996) (holding under Maryland Rule 4.(2)当靠谱的滚球平台知道某组织方的前雇员广泛接触保密信息时，靠谱的滚球平台不得与该雇员进行单方面接触。.
3. In Op. 我们的结论是，当靠谱的滚球平台收到包含客户机密或对手机密的文件时, 而且在检查文件之前就知道泄露是无意的, Rule 1.15(a) requires the receiving lawyer to return the documents to the sending lawyer; the lawyer also violates Rule 8.4(c) if the lawyer reads and/or uses the material. 靠谱的滚球平台在与前雇员的交流中是否收到了对方的特权信息，可能比从对方靠谱的滚球平台那里收到特权文件的情况要模糊得多, which itself is not always a model of clarity. 在靠谱的滚球平台知道前雇员披露明显享有特权的信息没有得到享有特权的实体授权的情况下, however, 靠谱的滚球平台可能违反规则8.4(c) if the lawyer uses the privileged information.
4. 例如，在Formal Op中. 第91-359(1991)条，美国靠谱的滚球平台协会道德和职业责任委员会得出结论，规则4.2不排除与对方公司的前雇员接触. 委员会警告说, however, 靠谱的滚球平台“必须小心，不要试图诱使前雇员违反靠谱的滚球平台与客户通信所附带的特权，因为他或她作为前雇员与其前雇员的靠谱的滚球平台的通信受到特权的保护. . . . Such an attempt could violate Rule 4.4 (requiring respect for the rights of third persons).参见ABA正式操作. 97-408, n.14(1997)(“靠谱的滚球平台知道从前政府雇员那里获得法律保护不得披露用于诉讼的信息，但可能违反示范规则4.4, 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). . . .”); Conn. 酒吧屁股非正式Op. 96-4(1996)(规则4.4 precludes lawyer from reviewing and copying psychiatric records of client’s ex-wife made confidential by statute); Pa. 酒吧屁股非正式Op. 93-135(1993)(规则4.4 prohibits lawyer from conducting surreptitious inspection of psychiatric records of major witness against client; although information would be very useful in impeaching witness, Pennsylvania caselaw makes such records absolutely confidential); N.J. Sup. Ct. Adv. Comm. on Prof. Ethics Op. 第680(1995)条(如果靠谱的滚球平台秘密复制对方靠谱的滚球平台拥有的机密文件), and items of evidence were involved, it would constitute a violation of Rule 4.4).
