Niesig v. Team I
558 N.E.2d 1030, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The ethical rule prohibiting communication with a represented party (DR 7-104(A)(1)) does not create a blanket ban on interviewing all employees of a represented corporation. Instead, it bars ex parte communication only with corporate employees whose acts or omissions are binding on or imputed to the corporation for liability purposes, or who are implementing the advice of corporate counsel.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Niesig was an employee of DeTrae Enterprises, Inc.
- DeTrae was working on a building construction site owned by defendant Team I, where defendant J.M. Frederick was the general contractor.
- Niesig was injured when he fell from scaffolding at the construction site.
- Other DeTrae employees were on the site at the time of the accident and witnessed the event.
- Niesig's counsel sought to privately interview these employee-witnesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Niesig commenced a personal injury action against J.M. Frederick and Team I in the trial court (Supreme Court).
- Defendants J.M. Frederick and Team I brought a third-party action against Niesig's employer, DeTrae Enterprises, Inc.
- Niesig moved in the trial court for permission for his counsel to conduct ex parte interviews of DeTrae employees who witnessed the accident.
- The trial court denied Niesig's motion.
- Niesig appealed to the intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division).
- The Appellate Division modified the trial court's order, limiting the ban on interviews to current employees but otherwise affirming the prohibition.
- The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Disciplinary Rule 7-104 (A) (1) prohibit an attorney from conducting ex parte interviews with all current employees of a represented corporate party in litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
No. Disciplinary Rule 7-104 (A) (1) does not prohibit ex parte communications with all employees of a represented corporate party. The court rejected a blanket ban as overly broad and a narrow 'control group' test as insufficient to protect corporate interests. Instead, the court adopted a new test defining 'party' to include only those employees whose acts or omissions are binding on the corporation for liability, or who are responsible for implementing the advice of counsel. This approach balances the need for informal discovery and fact-gathering with the rule's purpose of preventing opposing counsel from taking advantage of a represented party. The court reasoned that the disciplinary rules are not statutes and must be interpreted to serve the interests of justice for all parties, which includes allowing access to witnesses. The court distinguished the attorney-client privilege discussed in Upjohn, noting the privilege protects confidential communications but does not immunize underlying facts from disclosure.
Concurring - Bellacosa, J.
No. While concurring in the result to allow the interviews, the 'alter ego' test adopted by the majority is nearly as broad as the blanket ban it rejects and will be difficult and costly to apply. The 'control group' test, which would only prohibit contact with the most senior corporate management, is a better approach. This narrower test would maximize the truth-seeking function of litigation by allowing informal access to the greatest number of potential witnesses. The majority's 'alter ego' test is vague and may lead to more litigation just to determine which employees are covered by the rule, thereby hindering rather than helping the discovery process.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant new precedent in New York for attorney ethics and pretrial discovery. By rejecting a blanket ban on ex parte communications with all corporate employees, the court created a more nuanced 'alter ego' test. This ruling clarifies the scope of DR 7-104 (A) (1) in the corporate context, promoting informal fact-gathering which can make litigation more efficient and less costly. The decision directly impacts litigation strategy, empowering attorneys to seek information from an opponent's lower-level employees and witnesses while still protecting the corporation from having its key decision-makers or legally-implicated employees make uncounseled admissions.
