## Facts

- Dena Palmer sought employment at a hotel and casino operated by Pioneer Inn Associates, Ltd.
- Palmer alleged that a Pioneer Inn manager told her she was not hired because she was pregnant, and she brought federal Title VII claims with related state-law claims.
- During the federal litigation, Palmer’s counsel had ex parte communications with a Pioneer Inn supervisor without consent from Pioneer Inn’s counsel.
- The federal district court treated the communication as violating Nevada Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 182 (the “no-contact” rule) and imposed evidentiary sanctions, including exclusion of the supervisor’s statements and related testimony.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified questions to the Nevada Supreme Court concerning which employees of a represented organization may be contacted ex parte under SCR 182.

## Issues

1. What test governs application of SCR 182 to communications with employees of a represented organization.
2. Whether SCR 182’s scope should be defined by an evidentiary “party-opponent admission” approach (analogous to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)) or by a narrower role-based standard.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reframed the certified questions to ask what test Nevada uses to apply SCR 182 to employees of a represented organization.
- The court rejected the “admissible admission” approach tied to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D).
- The court adopted the “managing-speaking agent” test to determine which organizational employees are covered by SCR 182’s prohibition on ex parte communications.
- Because the matter was presented through certification, the court provided the governing rule but did not decide the merits of Palmer’s discrimination claims.

## Legal Principles

- SCR 182 bars a lawyer from communicating about the subject of the representation with a represented party without consent of the party’s counsel or legal authorization; for organizations, the key question is which employees constitute the “party.”
- Nevada applies the “managing-speaking agent” test: ex parte contact is prohibited only with employees who have managerial responsibility in the matter and/or authority to speak for and bind the organization regarding the subject of the representation.
- The fact that an employee’s statement might be admissible against the organization as a party-opponent admission does not, by itself, determine whether SCR 182 prohibits ex parte contact.
- Ethical limits remain applicable to permissible contacts (including avoiding misrepresentation and avoiding intrusion into privileged attorney-client communications).

## Conclusion

Nevada held that SCR 182’s no-contact restriction for represented organizations is governed by the “managing-speaking agent” test, limiting prohibited ex parte communications to employees who manage the matter or can speak for and bind the organization, rather than extending the ban to all employees whose statements could qualify as organizational admissions.


Palmer v. Pioneer Inn Assocs., Ltd., 118 Nev. 943, 59 P.3d 1237 (Nev. 2002)