Doe v. Superior Court, No. D075331 (D4d1 Jun. 13, 2019)
The case deals with the no-contact rule, recently re-codified as Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2. Plaintiff is suing a College for sexual harassment. There’s another College Employee who was allegedly similarly harassed. Plaintiff’s Attorney reaches out to Employee #2 prior to her deposition. When the College learns about the contact, it moves to DQ Plaintiff’s Attorney under Rule 4.2. College argues that because Employee #2 was a College employee, Attorney made improper ex parte contact with a party represented in the litigation. The trial court granted the motion.
But that’s not right, and the Court of Appeal grants a writ.
Showing posts with label no-contact rule. Show all posts
Showing posts with label no-contact rule. Show all posts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...