## Facts

- Dorothy C. Camden, a former Bowie State University (BSU) instructor, sued Maryland and BSU alleging race and age discrimination arising from her discharge.
- During the dispute, BSU designated Richard Redmond, Special Assistant to the BSU President for affirmative action, as the principal contact person for Camden’s counsel regarding Camden’s claims.
- In that role, Redmond interacted with senior administrators and BSU’s attorneys and was extensively involved in confidential communications and internal evaluations of Camden’s claims and litigation risk.
- While Redmond was still associated with BSU, defense counsel objected when Camden’s counsel attempted to communicate with Redmond outside counsel’s presence.
- After Redmond’s relationship with BSU ended on unpleasant terms, Camden’s counsel met with him ex parte and obtained confidential communications and documents reflecting BSU’s internal assessments and legal strategy.
- Defendants moved to strike Redmond’s testimony and to disqualify Camden’s counsel based on improper ex parte contact and acquisition of protected materials.

## Issues

1. Whether counsel may communicate ex parte with an opposing party’s former employee when counsel knows or should know the former employee was extensively exposed to the opposing party’s confidential client information.
2. Whether improper ex parte contact and receipt of confidential communications warrants striking the former employee’s testimony and disqualifying the contacting law firm.

## Decision

- The court held that, subject to limited exceptions, counsel may not have ex parte contact with a former employee of another interested party when counsel knows or should know the former employee was extensively exposed to that party’s confidential client information.
- The court stated that such contact generally may occur only with opposing counsel’s consent or court approval.
- Applying that rule, the court found Camden’s counsel improperly interviewed Redmond ex parte and obtained confidential communications and documents.
- The court granted defendants’ motion to strike Redmond’s testimony.
- The court granted defendants’ motion to disqualify Camden’s counsel from further representation.

## Legal Principles

- Professional-conduct limits on communications with represented parties can extend, as a functional matter, to certain former employees whose prior roles gave them substantial access to attorney–client confidences and litigation strategy.
- When counsel knows or should know a former employee has been extensively exposed to an organization’s confidential client information, ex parte contact is generally prohibited absent opposing counsel’s consent or court approval.
- Courts may use evidentiary exclusion and attorney disqualification to remedy improper acquisition or use of an adversary’s confidential communications and to protect the integrity and fairness of litigation.

## Conclusion

The court barred ex parte interviews of a former organizational employee who had extensive exposure to the organization’s confidential communications and strategy, and it enforced that protection by striking the witness’s testimony and disqualifying the interviewing law firm.


Camden v. Maryland, 910 F. Supp. 1115 (D. Md. 1996)