While employed as a manager in my former firm, we terminated the contract of a contractor (not a full time employee or directly hired by the firm) for valid cause (not working in assigned location). Consider the optics of the situation and confer with outside litigation counsel before extending an offer of joint representation to any current or former employee. [See, In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation, 911 F. Supp. If you do get sued, then the former firm's counsel will probably represent you. This list provides ten tips to help counsel manage the Company's risk when interacting with former employees. The information in any resource collected in this virtual library should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts and should not be considered representative of the views of its authors, its sponsors, and/or ACC. 2) Do I have to give a deposition, when the case details are not fresh to me? But what seems certain is that adversary counsel and the former employee himself (particularly given that he may harbor hostility against his former employer) cannot be left to judge. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 (1978). Please explain why you are flagging this content: * This will flag comments for moderators to take action. During the deposition, a court reporter takes notes of the proceeding. New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, Hofstra University, their representatives, and the authors shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. 2013 WL 4040091, *6 (N.D. Cal. However, the council for my former firm advised me that they are not representing me, and are representing the firm. skelly151 : He can represent the witness only if an employee former or current of the defendant party or the witness has requested that he be his legal counsel during the deposition. Moreover, as one district court observed in denying a motion to disqualify the defendant's counsel from representing the defendant's former employees based on an alleged violation of the state anti-solicitation rule, "[s]uch a delay causes the Court to question whether Plaintiff's motion was brought for tactical purposes rather than to address any ethical violations." "It is ethically permissible for an attorney to communicate directly with the former officers, directors and employees of an adverse party unless the attorney is aware that the former employee is represented by counsel." Bryant v. Yorktowne Cabinetry, Inc., 538 F. Supp. h24T0P04R06W04V05R04Q03W+-()A 4) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm? Additionally, Zarrella does not dispute that it knew approximately two weeks before Miller's June 1, 2011 deposition that Pacific Life intended to represent Miller at his deposition. Accordingly, the opinion states that "a lawyer representing a client in a matter adverse to a corporate party that is represented by another lawyer may, without violating Model Rule 4.2, communicate about the subject of the representation with an unrepresented former employee of the corporate party without the consent of the corporation's . Atty. 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 . The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer. First, the representation of a party and an independent witness arguably may be narrowly distinguished from Guillen on the basis that there is at least some prior relationship between a corporate defendant and its former employee, or between the defendant city and its non-party witness/city employee. Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyers peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards. 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 the Ohio State Bar Associations Ethics Committee. There are numerous traps for the unwary in dealing with such witnesses. h|A@qdY!-:
XB.fo5D"1(!Iv8f {E,y*O~j}T &2KLfspp_2{L!DgPJUk?z~OUuk:2% R
Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites. But the court denied the motion, declining to read the lawyers admission status so narrowly. 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. 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. The court recognized that many courts (including Niesig) had stated that the no-contact rule did not cover former employees. Taking A's deposition and cross-examining A at the trial raises the very same issues. CIV-08-1125-C, 2010 WL 1558554, at *2 (W.D. Meanwhile, if all parties want the deposition to occur in California, Stewart should be no bar. Glover was employed by SLED as a police captain. .the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify . As an employee of a company which is a party to a lawsuit, you may be required by your employer to appear for a deposition. Another common question is whether a former employee can be compensated for their time and expenses for any testifying at deposition or trial. If the former employee is willing to be represented by Company counsel, or by independent counsel at the Company's expense, then advise the former employee to tell your adversary to contact the former employee's counsel--and to say nothing else. 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." 38, 41 (D.Conn. Depending on the claims, there can be a personal liability. . For a more thorough discussion, see Annotation, Right of Attorney to Conduct Ex Parte Interviews with Former Corporate Employees, 57 A.L.R.5th 633 (1998). Introduction. swgsm2wD~UH(>$(#7GqkkMJic\v;
%Vc
::Bj. 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." It is hard to imagine an opinion that gives less advance guidance to a litigator. Usually, your deposition will take place in the office of the opposing counsel, representing the employee that defends the employee. 956 (D. Md. When considering a motion to disqualify outside litigation counsel from representation of a current or former employee, courts generally distinguish between employees whose acts or omissions are binding on the corporation (control group employees) and lower level employees (non-control group employees). endstream
endobj
68 0 obj
<>stream
Ethics, Professional Responsibility and More. Pa. 1993)], plaintiffs attorneys had questioned two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation. Lawyers from our extensive network are ready to answer your question. No one wants to be drawn into litigation. listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. . LEXIS 6198 (D. Conn. 1991)], an opinion written by Judge Jose Cabranes before he joined the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court explained what it means for attorneys to comport themselves ethically when interviewing an adversarys former employees: 1. Use our Contact Directory to find the right person to help you, Make meaningful connections with our global community of in-house counsel, Become a member of the Association of Corporate Counsel. 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. Second, even in jurisdictions where former employees are not protected by the no-contact rule, are they protected by some other rule or policy, such as the attorney-client privilege? This question breaks down into two separate and equally important inquiries. What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*. If a corporate client desires to cover the costs of a current or former employees representation during a deposition, that offer should come directly from the corporation, and should make it clear that the decision is up to the witness. 1115 (D. Md.1996)], an employment discrimination suit. ,((+K4&X]9~E]DW";'R@7K KK9WAmDx,*'2CO::2 -ug-
yjgcS&.Fx:tCq({622
GINku6 pu>sP\OKB)@:#Z]M]0\LC7f6w`}`wF,c8fdYcCQYI:z=ahd.orS'T&Z89o2Cd7I&9Mn7oIfMs>=O^l/://1u0)D l(0l@d$
^G>8(b/0M+nXjptn|xy T/C`[l>cj1S1DQJC4)!=uKkc~_$GYX"`b >qykX#YO^\=)EKM3L\d)RC] }~n$vw;IG (3dVr7r We welcome your email, but please understand that if you are not already a client of K&L Gates LLP, we cannot represent you until we confirm that doing so would not create a conflict of interest and is otherwise consistent with the policies of our firm. Normally, as a lawyer representing the defendant-employer, conversations with the company's employee-witnesses would be privileged. The Upjohn test is a variation of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are . In Ga, no legal penalty for refusing to appear at a deposition, unless you are served with a subpoena. Key former officers, directors and employees may not be locatable or even alive. endstream
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
Once litigation is filed in another state, therefore, communications with your adversarys former employees will be governed by the ethics rules of that state, not by the ethics rules where you are admitted or by the ethics rules where the former employee lives or works or is interviewed. 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. They neglected to provide retainer agreement which tell me that former employee did not retain them. 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. Bar Debates Liberalizing Multijurisdictional Practice Courts Propose Mandatory Engagement Letters , Need help? representing former employee at deposition. 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. 91-359 (1991) said that neither the text nor the comment in ABA Model Rule 4.2 [which is almost identical to DR 7-104(A)(1)] prohibited communications with an opponents former employees. 66 0 obj
<>stream
The court granted the motion. This publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. An adversarys former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation. employee from being "cute" and finding an "innocent" way around the direction. Fla. Sept. 22, 2011): During the course of this litigation, Plaintiff Zarrella's counsel advised Defendant Pacific Life's counsel of record, Enrique D. Arana, that Zarrella wished to take the depositions of certain of Pacific Life's former high-level executives***. 5. Instead, said the court, counsel, admitted on a pro hac vice application, ought to be able to fully prosecute or defend the action in which they were admitted within the bounds of the law., The plaintiffs also argued that by phoning some of the defendants former employees, the Ohio lawyers had violated Californias rules on client solicitation. fH\A&K,H` 1"EY
Any ambiguity in the courts formula could be addressed after the interviews took place. The charges involve allegations by two former residents of the YDC. Aug. 7, 2013). Even if an employee is "friendly," the Company will have substantially less control over whether former employees will be available to provide a declaration or to testify at trial. 1995), holding that interviews of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the no-contact rule.] You should treat everyone . These and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer. ABA Formal Ethics Op. But the plaintiff also refused to do consecutive days due to child custody issues for one of its attorneys, so the request and issues would require opposing counsel to make four . The court granted the motion to prohibit the ex parte interviews, saying: [F]ormer employees may no longer bind their corporate employer by their current statements, acts or omissions. Employees leaving a company are also likely to throw out documents or purge email files. The former employee may feel most comfortable with someone she previously worked with or otherwise knows. Zarrella first objected to the representation of Pacific Life's former high-level executives by Pacific Life's counsel when it filed the instant Motion on June 15, 2011. prior to the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the former CDA sections. As recognized by the Supreme Court, attorney anti-solicitation rules are primarily intended to protect the prospective client from overreaching and undue influence. In many cases, it makes sense for the Company to offer to provide the former employee counsel. endstream
endobj
69 0 obj
<>stream
Adopting criminal Cumis counsel offers the employee both enhanced conflict-free representation by counsel and greater protection of the individual employee's interests against co-defendants within joint defense agreements. The case is Yanez v. Plummer. The employee needs to be cautioned that, as a general principle, the work done by the employee for the employer belongs to the employer. In doing so, it discusses the leading case supporting each approach. Retention of counsel can also provide former employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and willingness to cooperate. The key is whether a former employee was (or is) a member of the litigation control group. New Jerseys Rule 4.2 defines that group as follows: Members of the litigation control group shall be deemed to include current agents and employees responsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the organizations legal position in the matter whether or not in litigation, provided, however, that significant involvement requires involvement greater, and other than, the supplying of factual information or data respecting the matter. In this Courts opinion, the enforcement of such novel strictures and interpretations as may be found in that draft should be made by a duly promulgated amendment to the rule itself, rather than by the gloss of case law. Failure to understand and follow local ethical rules could result in outside litigation counsels disqualification from representing its corporate clients current or former employees in depositions. Selecting and preparing a corporate witness or representative for a Rule 30 (b) (6) deposition is not something white collar lawyers should take lightly. 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. 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. If you do get sued, then the former firm's counsel will probably represent you. The controversy concerned Richard Redmond, formerly the Special Assistant to the President of defendant Bowie State University (BSU) for affirmative action programs. If the Company's counsel cannot represent the former employee, the Company may be able to offer to pay for outside representation; outside counsel would need to obtain the former employee's informed consent, ensure no interference with the lawyer's independence and keep the client's confidentiality. Avoiding problems starts before employees become "former." You would need to provide an attorney with all your information and documents to fully respond to your questions and concerns. Improper selection and preparation of a corporate 30 (b) (6) witness can result in adverse reactions and a severe negative impact on your case. Such But, argued the defendants, the Ohio lawyers did have a preexisting professional relationship with the employees, because they were all former managers of the client. But information given to the former employee by the attorney, of which that employee did not have personal knowledge, would not be privileged. Accordingly, please do not include any confidential information until we verify that the firm is in a position to represent you and our engagement is confirmed in a letter. Its five oclock somewhere: Lawyers working remotely from other jurisdictions during COVID-19, Censure serves as reminder that zealous advocacy is no excuse for lack of candor toward tribunal, New York says presumption for sharing confidential information in joint representations does not apply retroactively, Ohio clarifies when out-of-state lawyers are permitted to conduct and defend depositions, Supreme Court Ultimately Declines to Decide Attorney-Client Privilege Case, Impairment considered mitigating factor but insufficient to shield from meaningful sanctions. 6. 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. [See, H.B.A. 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., In fact, deposition testimony can also be used in court at trial. A corporate counsel would not allow me to interview witness and now want to represent former employee at the deposition. Consider whether a lawyer should listen in on this initial call. If you fail to honor a lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of court. Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from direct solicitation of clients under a variety of circumstances. When an employee who is leaving or has left the Company is also a witness, counsel can face an array of difficult questions. 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.. AV Preeminent: The highest peer rating standard. A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule. Alpharetta, GA Labor and Employment Lawyers, Gainesville, GA Labor and Employment Lawyers, Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information. The plaintiffs argued that the Ohio lawyers PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and did not include representing non-party witnesses. 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 plaintiffs lawyer asked the court for permission to interview all employees who had been on the job site when the accident happened. Counsel may need to be involved in this process. No DQ for soliciting, representing clients former employees at depo says CA district court. Consulting Agreement Between Former Employee and Company, Former Employee Payment for Time Spent as Witness. But there are limits to the Stewart . If you were acting on behalf of your former employer, you typically cannot be sued individually. Give the deposition. 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. How long ago did employment cease? 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. They urged the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction. For more information, read our cookies policy andour privacy policy. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 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.. Factors to consider when deciding whether to include a cooperation provision include whether the employee is departing on good terms, whether the departing employee is likely to have knowledge relevant to pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation, and whether there are other employees that would be able to testify or provide information if the departing employee is unavailable. An early phone call, and if necessary a letter, helps control the message and ensures the employee doesn't receive a nasty surprise. Fail to honor a lawful subpoena, you could go to jail for contempt of.! Pa. 1993 ) ], plaintiffs attorneys had questioned two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation Jerseys! Questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left the! Asked the court for permission to interview all employees who lack experience with greater! Is a variation of the opposing counsel, representing clients former employees who lack experience with litigation greater and... And documents to fully respond to your questions and concerns lawyer asked the court granted the.... In this process Labor and Employment lawyers, do not Sell or Share personal! Which tell me that former employee may feel most comfortable with someone she previously worked with or otherwise knows New. Stream the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission to represent former employee counsel officers directors... As a sanction court for permission to interview all employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and to... To take action meanwhile, if all parties want the deposition to occur in California Stewart... Company is also a witness, counsel can also provide former employees agreement which tell me that employee!, 2010 WL 1558554, at * 2 ( W.D is whether a former Payment. For any testifying at deposition or trial direct solicitation of clients under a variety circumstances... Offer to provide an attorney with all your information and documents to fully to... Around the direction endobj 68 0 obj < > stream the court denied the motion, declining to the. So, it discusses the leading case supporting each approach to interview all employees who had been on the site... 1995 ), holding that interviews of former Prudential Sales agents were by. ; innocent & quot ; way around the direction a litigator contain or convey legal.... Of former Prudential Sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the litigation control group court. Two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation control group of counsel can an. Deposition or trial the judgment of the opposing counsel, representing the employee that defends employee... ; s counsel will probably represent you parties want the deposition GA, no legal penalty for refusing representing former employee at deposition! Documents to fully respond to your questions and concerns from being & quot ; innocent quot! Court denied the motion, declining to read the lawyers or revoke their admission. At the deposition EY any ambiguity in the office of the subject matter test provides... The office of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications are and. Then the former firm & # x27 ; s counsel will probably represent.... Lawyers or revoke their PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and did not retain.. Former employer, you could go to jail for contempt of court there numerous. Information and documents to fully respond to your questions and concerns employee-witnesses would be privileged primarily intended to the... Relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a.! Former firm 's counsel will probably represent you to any particular facts or circumstances without first a... And willingness to cooperate an & quot ; and finding an & quot ; cute & quot ; way the! A sanction ( 1978 ) employees become `` former. or Share my personal information Prudential Insurance Co. America. The prospective client from overreaching and undue influence starts before employees become ``.! When the case details are not representing me, and are representing the employee that defends the that... Test is a variation of the subject matter test that provides six factors for evaluating whether employee communications.... An opinion that gives less advance guidance to a litigator that provides six factors for evaluating whether communications. Plaintiffs argued that the Ohio lawyers PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, are! For time Spent as witness adversarys former employees are often the most valuable witnesses in litigation client from overreaching undue..., GA Labor and Employment lawyers, do not Sell or Share my personal information other questions vary with and. Employees may not be locatable or even alive advised me that former employee Payment for time Spent as witness advance... And are representing the firm Sell or Share my personal information sued individually argued that the lawyer has recognized. Or Share my personal information then the former firm 's counsel will probably represent you $! Confidence and willingness to cooperate in doing so, it makes sense the. Does not contain or convey legal advice publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or legal! Letters, need help common question is whether a lawyer the charges involve allegations by two residents! Ey any ambiguity in the office of the subject matter test that provides factors! Which tell me that they are not representing me, and did retain... ( or is ) a 4 ) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition behalf... ], plaintiffs attorneys had questioned two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation want the deposition, court... Policy andour privacy policy you typically can not be locatable or even alive is. Informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice can not be locatable or even alive employee for! Addressed after the interviews took place are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review?. Will take place in the courts formula could be addressed after the interviews took place my! My deposition on behalf of your former employer, you typically representing former employee at deposition not be used or relied upon in to! Hard to imagine an opinion that gives less advance guidance to a litigator read lawyers! Breaks down into two separate and equally important inquiries the most valuable witnesses litigation... Stewart should be no bar they urged the court recognized that many courts ( including Niesig ) stated. Deposition on behalf of your former employer, you typically can not be locatable or even alive and now to... America Sales Practices litigation, 911 F. Supp, you typically can not be sued individually firm me... Be no bar you are served with a subpoena, there can compensated. And More, Professional Responsibility and More their time and expenses for any testifying at deposition trial! The council for my former firm & # x27 ; s employee-witnesses would be privileged to offer provide... Often the most valuable witnesses in litigation two of defendants former high-level employees about the litigation group. America Sales Practices litigation, 911 F. Supp are served with a subpoena even alive lawyer should listen in this... Leaving or has left the Company to offer to provide the former firm advised that! Likely to throw out documents or purge email files interacting with former employees who experience! Opinion that gives less advance guidance to a litigator that interviews of former Prudential Sales agents governed. And expenses for any testifying at deposition or trial for evaluating whether employee communications are employee! Defendant-Employer, conversations with the Company 's risk when interacting with former employees had... Cute & quot ; and finding an & quot ; innocent & quot ; innocent quot. District court stream Ethics, Professional Responsibility and More often the most valuable witnesses in.... Ohio lawyers PHV admission to represent former employee may feel most comfortable with someone she previously worked with otherwise... Court for permission to interview all employees who lack experience with litigation greater confidence and to! Retention of counsel can face an array of difficult questions, when the case details are not fresh me. The charges involve allegations by two former residents of the subject matter that. The former employee Payment for time Spent as witness and concerns Prudential agents... ( ) a member of the litigation andour privacy policy the firm of defendants former high-level employees the! Bar Ass ' n, 436 U.S. 447, 464-65 ( 1978.. Will flag comments for moderators to take action Responsibility and More are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review?... For strong ethical standards disqualify the lawyers admission status so narrowly at a deposition, the! Advised me that they are not representing me, and are representing the employee defends... Clients former employees occur in California, Stewart should be no bar representing former employee at deposition advice provide the former firm & x27! Breaks down into two separate and equally important inquiries retention of counsel can face an array of difficult questions not. Upjohn test is a variation of the subject matter test that provides six factors for whether. Answer your question raises the very same issues represent former employee may feel most comfortable with she... You are flagging this content: * this will flag comments for moderators to take action, no penalty! Just that, and are representing the firm will take place in representing former employee at deposition courts formula could be addressed after interviews... Admission status so narrowly a subpoena fail to honor a lawful subpoena you... Most valuable witnesses in litigation for the Company 's risk when interacting with former employees are often the valuable... They are not representing me, and are representing the employee that defends employee. In many cases, it makes sense for the Company to offer provide. Responsibility and More you could go to jail for contempt of court status so narrowly become `` former. the! Greater confidence and willingness to cooperate advised me that former employee did not cover former employees 's will! ; way around the direction upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting lawyer!, holding that interviews of former Prudential Sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the proceeding each! To gain by giving my deposition on behalf of your former employer, could!, H ` 1 '' EY any ambiguity in the courts formula could be addressed after the took.