|
1825 An attorney who was aware that all claims against a railroad were referred to in-house counsel did not commit misconduct by interviewing a railroad employee prior to filing action against the railroad, because without actual knowledge that such house counsel represents the person being interviewed when that interview is conducted, a lawyer should not be at risk of disciplinary action because s/he "should have known" that an opposing party was represented or would be represented at some time in the future.CitationTRUITT v SUPERIOR COURT (RR Interview) 59 CA4 1183 [See: CA R of Prof Cond 2-100; Jorgensen v Taco Bell 50 CA4 1398, T/AT 12/96]
|
|
