Pratt v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.

Decision Date28 June 1999
Docket NumberNo. Civ.A. 97-11792-WGY.,Civ.A. 97-11792-WGY.
Citation54 F.Supp.2d 78
PartiesWayne L. PRATT, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

William G. Talis, Law Office of William G. Talis, Boston, MA, David L. Lockard, Philadelphia, PA, Anthony M. Santoro, Medford, MA, for Wayne L. Pratt, plaintiff.

Wayne L. Pratt, Clinton, TN, pro se,

Thomas P. O'Reilly, Paul M. Moretti, Curtin, Murphy & O'Reilly, PC, Boston, MA, for National Railroad Passenger Corporation, defendant.

MEMORANDUM

YOUNG, Chief Judge.

I.INTRODUCTION.

On December 14, 1995, the plaintiff in this action, Wayne L. Pratt("Pratt"), suffered an injury while opening the doors on a railroad baggage car owned by the defendant, National Railroad Passenger Corporation("Amtrak").Pratt brought an action for personal injury against Amtrak pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act (the "Act"), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60.After a full trial, the jury declined to hold Amtrak liable under the Act.This opinion deals with an ethical matter raised during trial.It in no way undercuts the jury's verdict.

During discovery, the plaintiff's counsel, David L. Lockard("Lockard"), learned that an Amtrak foreman, Tom Reilly("Reilly"), inspected the relevant baggage car only hours after Pratt's injury and prepared a report describing the condition of its doors.Through correspondence with Amtrak's attorneys, Lockard attempted to schedule a deposition of Reilly.After Amtrak repeatedly refused to produce Reilly, Lockard took matters into his own hands and conducted an ex parte deposition of Reilly.

On the eve of trial, Amtrak moved to exclude the Reilly deposition on the ground that Lockard's ex parte interview violated the ethical rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.This Court also expressed concerns that Lockard's actions potentially constituted ethical misconduct subject to discipline under the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts(the "Local Rules").Since the deposition revealed highly probative evidence, however, this Court refused to exclude the data.Moreover, the Court is now satisfied that Lockard's behavior was both appropriate and in compliance with ethical requirements.

II.LOCAL RULES PROHIBITION AGAINST EX PARTE CONTACT.

Under the Local Rules, attorneys practicing in this District must comply with the ethical requirements concerning the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts embodied in the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.SeeLocalRule 83.6(4)(B).Failure constitutes misconduct and warrants discipline.Seeid.

Rule 4.2 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct as incorporated in Rule 3.07 of the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts provides:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.

Historically, this rule is justified by the need to preserve the mediating role of counsel on behalf of their clients and to protect clients from overreaching by counsel for adverse interests.SeeIrving Younger, The Lawyer's Relations with Non-Clients, in Professional Responsibility 123, 124 (Davidson Reamed., 1978);see alsoGrievance Comm. for S. Dist. of New York v. Simels,48 F.3d 640, 647(2nd Cir.1995).

The rule works well as to individual clients; it works less well with respect to corporate clients since it is never entirely clear in the corporate context just who is the "client."

If the rule's prohibition were limited to the corporation's "control group," i.e., those persons with authority to seek and act upon legal advice for the corporation, see19 William G. Young, John R. Pollets & Christopher Poreda, Massachusetts Practice, Evidence§ 503.3, at 264 (2d ed.1998), it would cause little difficulty.But the Massachusetts ethical rule is far from limited.Indeed, it is measured not by reference to the attorney-client privilege at all, but rather by the scope of the evidentiary rule admitting the statements of an employee in an action against the corporate employer.SeeMassachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4.2 Comment [4].1Both the Massachusetts and federal courts admit against a party opponent any "statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship."Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D);Mass.Evid. Stand. 801(d)(3)(D)(1995);Ruszcyk v. Secretary of Public Safety,401 Mass. 418, 421-22, 517 N.E.2d 152(1988).In this district, therefore, the prohibition against attorney contact sweeps far more broadly than does the attorney-client privilege as interpreted either in the federal, seeUp-john Co. v. United States,449 U.S. 383, 383-91, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584(1981), or the Massachusetts courts;seeNational Employment Serv. Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,No. 93-2528-G1994 WL 878920, at *1-2(Mass.Super.Dec. 12, 1994)(Richard Welch, J.).Like the American Bar Association, therefore, Massachusetts follows a rule strikingly protective of corporations.2This Court has previously highlighted some of the negative aspects of ethical rules prohibiting ex parte communications with individuals in the corporate context.SeeSiguel v. Trustees of Tufts College,No. 88-0626-Y, 1990 WL 29199, at *3-6(D.Mass.March 12, 1990);see alsoHurley v. Modern Continental Constr. Co., Inc.,No. 94-11373-RBC, 1999 WL 95723, at *1-2(D.Mass.Feb.19, 1999)(Collings, M.J.).

III.LEGAL AUTHORIZATION FOR SUCH CONTACT

Unless his conduct was "authorized by law," therefore, Lockard has violated our Disciplinary Rules for ethical conduct.Lockard, however, contends that, in the FELA context, his conduct was authorized by the Congress of the United States.He points to section 10 of the Act which states:

Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose, intent, or effect of which shall be to prevent employees of any common carrier from furnishing voluntarily information to a person in interest as to the facts incident to the injury or death of any employee, shall be void, and whoever, by threat, intimidation, order, rule, contract, regulation, or device whatsoever, shall attempt to prevent any person from furnishing voluntarily such information to a person in interest, or whoever discharges or otherwise disciplines or attempts to discipline any employee for furnishing voluntarily such information to a person in interest, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to void any contract, rule, or regulation with respect to any information contained in the files of the carrier, or other privileged or confidential reports.

45 U.S.C. § 60.Lockard argues that both the judicial interpretation and the legislative history of section 10 illustrate that the provision is exactly the type of legal authorization contemplated by Rule 4.2 to permit an attorney to conduct ex parte interviews.

There is a clear split of opinion among those courts that have examined the relationship between section 10 and state ethical rules prohibiting ex parte conduct.At least eight courts have held that ex parte depositions of represented witnesses in cases brought under the Act are appropriate despite ethical rules to the contrary.3While recognizing that the text of section 10 does not specify that ex parte conversations fall within its protection, these courts generally view section 10 as implying the "broadest kind of protection" of voluntary fact-giving and consider ethical rules requiring consent as "obstacle[s] to the free flow of information" envisioned by the drafters of section 10.United Trans. Union Local Unions 385and 77v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co.,No. 94 Civ 2979, 1995 WL 634906, at *4(S.D.N.Y.Oct.30, 1995).

By contrast, at least seven courts have held that section 10 of the Act does not authorize ex parte contact.4These courts read section 10 rather narrowly:

The obvious purpose of [section 10] is to allow injured railroad workers to obtain needed information about accidents in which they have been involved from their co-workers and to protect those co-workers from retaliation by the railroad.The section is not meant to be an excuse for attorneys representing railroad workers to sidestep their ethical responsibilities as set forth in Rules of Professional Conduct.Rule 4.2 in no way prevents an injured railroad worker from obtaining needed information from his co-workers nor his co-workers from voluntarily furnishing such information.Such a Plaintiff may depose such co-workers or may request the attorney for the railroad to approve a simple interview.

SeeWhite v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co.,162 F.R.D. 118, 120(S.D.Miss.1995);accordBranham v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.,151 F.R.D. 67, 71(S.D.W.Va.1993)("It seems apparent, however, that [section 10] has reference to conduct on the part of the railroad-employer which inhibits the furnishing of information by an employee, not to ethical rules regulating the conduct of an `officer of the legal system.'").

The First Circuit has never addressed this issue.Therefore, in order to resolve this split of opinion, this Court necessarily turns to the legislative history of section 10 which can be found almost entirely in a single Senate Committee Report:

The railroads maintain well-organized and highly efficient claim departments.When an employee is injured, the claim agent promptly endeavors to procure statements from all witnesses to the infliction of the injury, takes photographs, measurements, and obtains all available...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • Stanford v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College
    • United States
    • Massachusetts Superior Court
    • Noviembre 01, 2000
    ...7-104(A)(1) and Rule 4.2 by "the need to preserve the mediating role of counsel on behalf of their clients and to protect clients from overreaching by counsel for adverse interest." See Pratt v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 54 F.Supp.2d 78, 79 (D.Mass. 1999). Indeed, Massachusetts courts have interpreted the reach of DR 7-104(A) and Rule 4.2 broadly. See Kaveney v. Murphy, 97 F.Supp.2d 88, 92 (D. Mass. 2000); Rockland Trust Co. v. Computer Assoc. Int'l., Inc., 1999 WL 95722...
  • Messing Rudavsky v President & Fellows Harvard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • Marzo 19, 2002
    ...his or her employer." In re Air Crash Disaster near Roselawn, Ind., 909 F. Supp. 1116, 1121 (N.D. Ill. 1995). However, some of the courts that have adopted this interpretation have expressed reservations. See Pratt v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 54 F. Supp. 2d 78, 80 (D. Mass. 1999) ("This [c]ourt has previously highlighted some of the negative aspects of ethical rules prohibiting ex parte communications with individuals in the corporate context"); Hurley vs. Modern Cont. Constr.do so." The rule has been justified generally as "preserv[ing] the mediating role of counsel on behalf of their clients... protect[ing] clients from overreaching by counsel for adverse interests," Pratt v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 54 F. Supp. 2d 78, 79 (D. Mass. 1999), and "protecting the attorney-client relationship." In re Air Crash Disaster near Roselawn Ind., 909 F. Supp. 1116, 1121 (N.D. Ill. 1995). See Orlowski v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 723, 727...
  • Wagner v. City of Holyoke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • Diciembre 21, 2001
    ...lawyer or is authorized by law to do so." The rule is designed "to preserve the mediating role of counsel on behalf of their clients and to protect clients from overreaching by counsel for adverse interests." Pratt v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 54 F.Supp.2d 78, 79 (D.Mass.1999). With regard to organizational employees, comment [4] to Rule 4.2 states, in pertinent part, as [T]his Rule prohibits communications by a lawyer for another person or entity concerning the matter in representationcounsel. Comment [4], however, appears to have broadened the scope of the old rule, although not without some criticism. For example, Chief Judge William G. Young has described the new rule as "strikingly protective of corporations," Pratt, 54 F.Supp.2d at 80, and Chief Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings has indicated that "[t]he truth-seeking process may be frustrated" insofar as Rule 4.2 is tied to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Hurley v. Modern Continental Const. Co., 1999 WL 95723,...
  • Kaveney v. Murphy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • Febrero 18, 2000
    ...it is "measured not by reference to the attorney-client privilege at all, but rather by the scope of the evidentiary rule admitting the statements of an employee in an action against the corporate employer." Pratt v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 54 F.Supp.2d 78, 79, 80 (D.Mass. 1999).3 However, because Kaveney's counsel is seeking judicial authorization for employee interviews, not post hoc justification of them, I do not have to decide whether such a broad interpretation is B.and employees in the conduct of litigation," the Court stated that, "[i]f section 10 is not the type of legal authorization for ex parte communications anticipated by Rule 4.2, it is difficult to imagine what is." Pratt, 54 F.Supp.2d at 82. But while Pratt stands for the proposition that a statute may authorize ex parte contact otherwise prohibited by Rule 4.2, it does not suggest that a statute or regulation is the only legitimate source of legal authorization for otherwiseconduct of litigation," the Court stated that, "[i]f section 10 is not the type of legal authorization for ex parte communications anticipated by Rule 4.2, it is difficult to imagine what is." Pratt, 54 F.Supp.2d at 82. But while Pratt stands for the proposition that a statute may authorize ex parte contact otherwise prohibited by Rule 4.2, it does not suggest that a statute or regulation is the only legitimate source of legal authorization for otherwise prohibited ex parte...
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Authorized by Law: Ex Parte Contact With Government Officials Represented by Counsel
    • United States
    • KBA Bar Journal Kansas Bar Association
    • Invalid date
    ...without being present, since such discussions may affect the client's resolve in prosecuting or defending the litigation or the client's confidence in his attorney. See, e.g., Pratt v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 54 F. Supp. 2d 78, 79 (D. Mass. 1999) (Young, J.) ("Historically, [Rule 4.2] is justified by the need to preserve the mediating role of counsel on behalf of their clients and to protect clients by overreaching by counsel for adverse interests"); Rockland Trust Company...