Ezel / Ethics Opinions / WISBAR
WISBAR 1983

Can a lawyer contact the opposing party's expert witnesses, including treating physicians, without opposing counsel's permission?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that yes, an attorney may interview an opposing party's expert witnesses without opposing counsel's consent; a later opinion, E-91-4, modified this to bar private interviews of a plaintiff's treating physician under Klieger v. Alby.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1983
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Opinion E-83-13 addressed whether an attorney may contact an opposing party's expert witnesses, including treating medical doctors, without the permission of opposing counsel. The committee answered yes.

It stated the general rule that attorneys for one party in a pending cause of action are free to interview the intended witnesses of the other party without the consent or presence of opposing counsel, citing the Annotated Code of Professional Responsibility together with Devlin v. Rosman and Reilley v. Keswani. The committee noted it had followed this rule in Memo Opinion 2/77 and that ABA opinions support it, including ABA Formal Opinion 127 (1935) (proper to contact the physician who attended an opposing witness's decedent), ABA Informal Opinion 892, and a Maine opinion. The committee added that SCR 20.34(3)(i) and 20.43(2)-(3) address contacting witnesses by prohibiting advising or causing a person to secrete himself or leave the jurisdiction to become unavailable, and by proscribing payment of compensation to a witness contingent on the content of testimony or the outcome; neither rule prohibits an attorney from expressing an opinion about the necessity of a witness's testimony. The committee concluded it is clearly permissible to contact an opposing party's expert witness.

Currency note

This opinion was modified by the committee's Formal Opinion E-91-4, which reaffirmed E-83-13 in part but, relying on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Klieger v. Alby, held that a defendant's attorney may not conduct private pretrial interviews with a plaintiff's treating physician. Read E-83-13 together with E-91-4.

This opinion was issued in 1983, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies the former Code (SCR 20.34, 20.43). Contacts with witnesses and unrepresented persons are now addressed by SCR 20:3.4 and 20:4.3 / Model Rules 3.4 and 4.3. Subsequent rule amendments, court decisions, and later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a Wisconsin lawyer interview the other side's expert witness without opposing counsel's consent?

A: Yes, under E-83-13. The committee applied the general rule that a party's attorney may interview the other party's intended witnesses without the consent or presence of opposing counsel.

Q: Does this still apply to a plaintiff's treating physician?

A: Not without qualification. Formal Opinion E-91-4 later modified E-83-13, holding under Klieger v. Alby that a defendant's attorney may not privately interview a plaintiff's treating physician.

Q: Could the lawyer pay the witness for the interview?

A: The opinion noted that SCR 20.43 proscribes paying or offering to pay a witness compensation contingent on the content of the testimony or the outcome of the case.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted the former Code's witness provisions, SCR 20.34(3)(i) and 20.43(2)-(3), which barred causing a witness to become unavailable and barred testimony-contingent witness compensation. These topics now fall under SCR 20:3.4 / Model Rule 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), with contacts with unrepresented persons under SCR 20:4.3 / Model Rule 4.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Wis. SCR 20.34(3)(i), 20.43(2), 20.43(3) / Model Rule 3.4 (witness unavailability; witness compensation) (former Code provisions)

Cases:

  • Devlin v. Rosman, 205 So. 2d 346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967), interviewing the other party's witnesses
  • Reilley v. Keswani, 137 N.J. Super. 553, 350 A.2d 74 (1975), interviewing the other party's witnesses

Other opinions cited:

  • Wis. Memo Opinion 2/77: proper to contact an opposing party's expert witness
  • ABA Formal Opinion 127 (1935); ABA Informal Opinion 892 (1965): contacting opposing witnesses
  • Maine Opinion 73, 13 Me. Bar Bulletin 67 (1979)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1983 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.