Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffattorneymotion
plaintiffattorneymotion

Related Cases

Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, 454 F.2d 1036, 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2911, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 193, 66 Lab.Cas. P 12,223
View Case »
SEC v. National Student Marketing Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1974 WL 415, 18 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1302, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,610
View Case »
Gorham v. General Growth Properties, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 602
View Case »
Rosner v. Jiro Trading Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1996 WL 312354
View Case »
Seidel v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 616 F.Supp. 1342, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,383
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Johnson v. Cadillac Plastic Group, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 1437

Facts

Larry Johnson, the plaintiff, was terminated from his position at Cadillac Plastic Group, Inc. on August 17, 1993. Prior to his termination, he had contacted his former attorney, Karen Yablonski–Toll, to discuss his employment situation. After his termination, Johnson retained Yablonski–Toll formally on October 11, 1993, and subsequently sought to interview Paul Trujillo, a Cadillac employee, believing he could provide relevant information regarding his termination. Yablonski–Toll interviewed Trujillo on October 18, 1993, without confirming whether Trujillo had legal representation, which led to Cadillac's motion to strike their testimonies based on alleged ethical violations.

Larry Johnson, the plaintiff, was terminated from his position at Cadillac Plastic Group, Inc. on August 17, 1993. Prior to his termination, he had contacted his former attorney, Karen Yablonski–Toll, to discuss his employment situation.

Issue

Whether Cadillac Plastic Group, Inc. and its employee Paul Trujillo were considered 'parties' under Rule 4.2 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct at the time of the ex parte communications between Trujillo and the plaintiff's former attorney.

Whether Cadillac Plastic Group, Inc. and its employee Paul Trujillo were considered 'parties' under Rule 4.2 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct at the time of the ex parte communications between Trujillo and the plaintiff's former attorney.

Rule

Rule 4.2 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits an attorney from communicating about the subject of representation with a party known to be represented by another attorney unless consent is obtained or authorized by law.

Rule 4.2 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits an attorney from communicating about the subject of representation with a party known to be represented by another attorney unless consent is obtained or authorized by law.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Cadillac was a 'party' under Rule 4.2 at the time of the communications. It concluded that Cadillac was not a party because the mere fact that Johnson had expressed concerns about his job did not establish an adversarial relationship sufficient to trigger the protections of the rule. The court emphasized that the rule's no-contact provisions apply only once an adversarial relationship arises, which was not the case during the investigatory stages of Johnson's situation.

The court analyzed whether Cadillac was a 'party' under Rule 4.2 at the time of the communications. It concluded that Cadillac was not a party because the mere fact that Johnson had expressed concerns about his job did not establish an adversarial relationship sufficient to trigger the protections of the rule.

Conclusion

The court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied Cadillac's motion in limine, allowing the witnesses to testify. The court determined that the ethical violation, if any, should be addressed through sanctions against the attorney rather than excluding evidence.

The court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied Cadillac's motion in limine, allowing the witnesses to testify.

Who won?

Larry Johnson prevailed in this case because the court denied Cadillac's motion to strike the witnesses, allowing them to testify despite the alleged ethical violations.

Larry Johnson prevailed in this case because the court denied Cadillac's motion to strike the witnesses, allowing them to testify despite the alleged ethical violations.

You must be