New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Stanford v. Harvard College

2/13/2002

 
Stanford claims that she was denied advancement in the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) on the basis of gender. After she filed her complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, her counsel contacted five current employees of the HUPD, including two lieutenants who had supervised her. The MCAD ruled that counsel violated the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct when he contacted the employees. The case was later brought in Superior Court and the HUPD moved for sanctions. The ethical rules proscribe ex parte contact with three categories of employees: "[1] persons having managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization with regard to the subject matter of the representation… [2] any other person whose act or omission in connection with that matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability… [3] or any person whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization." Stanford contended that these rules should be interpreted narrowly to permit ex parte contact with all current employees except those in the "control group" and those whose acts or omissions are directly challenged. She argued that such an interpretation is necessary to vindicate the discrimination laws and to facilitate counsel’s compliance with Rule 11 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and its federal counterpart. 

NELF filed an amicus brief in Superior Court, arguing that the plain meaning of the rules proscribed the contacts that occurred and that Stanford’s policy arguments had been considered and rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court when it adopted the current rule. The NELF brief also demonstrated that a relaxed interpretation is not necessary to fulfill counsel’s Rule 11 obligations. The Superior Court held that the ex parte contacts were improper. The Court further held that in "an uncertain area of ethical conduct, a prudent attorney would have given notice to opposing counsel of the intent to take such a statement and/or have come to court for permission to do so." The Court prohibited counsel from using the statements and ordered counsel to pay HUPD’s attorneys fees and costs incurred in pursuing the sanctions motion.

Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001