## Facts

- Jane Doe, a student-employee in a community college district campus police department, sued the district and three employees for workplace sexual harassment and sexual assault.
- Doe’s complaint alleged the primary accused employee, a campus police officer, had sexually harassed two other female district employees, including Andrea P., as evidence relevant to the district’s notice of similar misconduct.
- Before Doe’s deposition, Doe’s attorney (Manuel Corrales Jr.) contacted Andrea P.
- At the time of contact, Andrea was a current district employee; the district had offered to provide counsel for her, but there was no evidence she had accepted the offer or retained counsel.
- Defendants moved to disqualify Corrales, asserting the contact violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 (communications with represented persons), including the provision governing communications with certain current employees of represented governmental organizations.
- The superior court granted the motion and disqualified Corrales.
- Doe sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal to set aside the disqualification order.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 4.2 barred Doe’s counsel from contacting Andrea P., a current employee of a represented governmental entity, absent evidence she was represented in the matter.
2. Whether Andrea P. fell within Rule 4.2(b)(2)’s category of government-organization employees whose acts or omissions may be binding on, or imputed to, the entity for liability purposes.
3. Whether disqualification was an appropriate remedy on this record.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate.
- The court directed the superior court to vacate its order disqualifying Corrales as Doe’s counsel.
- The court held Rule 4.2 did not prohibit the challenged communication because Andrea was not shown to be represented and was not the type of current employee covered by Rule 4.2(b)(2).

## Legal Principles

- Rule 4.2 prohibits a lawyer from communicating about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, absent consent or other lawful authorization.
- For a represented governmental organization, Rule 4.2(b)(2) restricts contact with a current employee only when the communication concerns an act or omission in connection with the matter that may be binding on, or imputed to, the organization for civil or criminal liability.
- A current employee who is merely a victim/witness providing evidence of another employee’s alleged misconduct, and whose own conduct is not legally attributable to the entity as a liability-creating act or omission, is not covered by Rule 4.2(b)(2) on that basis alone.
- Disqualification is an exercise of the court’s inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and is a drastic remedy requiring a valid ethical predicate; absent a Rule 4.2 violation, disqualification is improper.

## Conclusion

The court set aside counsel’s disqualification, holding that Rule 4.2 did not bar plaintiff’s counsel from contacting a current government-employee witness who was not shown to be represented and whose conduct was not binding on or imputable to the public employer for liability purposes.


Doe v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. App. 5th 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)