Legal Opinion
Camden v. State of Maryland
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided January 24, 1996No. Civil PJM 93-1854PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MESSITTE, District Judge.
I
The Court holds that a lawyer representing a client in a matter may not, subject to few exceptions, have ex parte contact with the former employee of another party interested in the matter when the lawyer knows or should know that the former employee has been extensively exposed to confidential client information of the other interested party. As a rule, such ex parte contact may occur only with the consent of the other interested party’s lawyer or approval of the court. “Other interested parties” for purposes of this standard include corporations and other…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Niesig v. Team INew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- United States v. (Under Seal)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
- Wright v. Group Health HospitalWashington Supreme Court · 1984
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Zachair, Ltd. v. DriggsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1997
- Law v. ZuckermanDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2004
- Athridge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Featherstone v. SchaerrerUtah Supreme Court · 2001
- Gross v. SES Americom, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2004
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.