Which contact rule did Missouri apply to former employees in this historical opinion?

Plain-English summary

A federal office with lawyers licensed in several states asked how Missouri interpreted Rule 4-4.2 regarding contacts with former employees.

The opinion said Missouri treated former employees like current employees under the then-applicable rule and cited State ex rel. Pitts v. Roberts. For a case entirely litigated in another state, an authorized lawyer following that state’s official court or disciplinary interpretation would not violate Missouri’s rule for that case. The official page warns that Rule 4-4.2 and its comments have changed substantially.

Currency note

The official page states that Rule 4-4.2 and its comments concerning former employees have changed substantially since this opinion issued. This 1996 opinion predates Missouri’s 2007 rule revisions. Treat its rule interpretation as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: How did the opinion treat former employees?

A: Under Missouri’s then-applicable interpretation, like current employees.

Q: When could another state’s interpretation govern the lawyer’s conduct?

A: For litigation entirely there, with authority to appear and compliance with that state’s official court or disciplinary interpretation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion said Missouri treated former employees like current employees under the then-applicable rule and cited State ex rel. Pitts v. Roberts. For a case entirely litigated in another state, an authorized lawyer following that state’s official court or disciplinary interpretation would not violate Missouri’s rule for that case. The official page warns that Rule 4-4.2 and its comments have changed substantially.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Missouri Rule 4-4.2

Cases:

• State ex rel. Pitts v. Roberts, 857 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Mo. banc 1993), former employee contact interpretation

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 960167: Other-state former-employee interview

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/960099/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

[NOTE: Rule 4–4.2 and its comments regarding former employees have changed substantially since this informal advisory opinion was issued.]

QUESTION: Attorney manages a federal government office that practices in all jurisdictions and has attorney who are licensed in various jurisdictions. Attorney asks about Missouri´s interpretation of Rule 4–4.2, especially related to contact with former employees, as it applies to attorneys in that office who are licensed in Missouri. ANSWER: Missouri´s interpretation of Rule 4–4.2 in relation to former employees is that they are treated the same as current employees. The Missouri Supreme Court established this interpretation and adopted the comment to Rule 4–4.2 in State ex rel. Pitts v. Roberts, 857 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Mo banc 1993). However, if an attorney is involved in a case which will be entirely litigated within another state and the attorney is authorized to appear in the case in that state, through licensure or visiting attorney admission, the attorney will not be found to violate Missouri´s version of Rule 4.2 if the attorney complies with the other state´s version and interpretations of that rule for purposes of that case. However, the other state´s interpretations will not protect the attorney unless they are official interpretations of a court or disciplinary authority.