| LEO Num | Topics | Summary | Date |
1235
 Print
|
| A defense lawyer may interview the plaintiff's expert even after losing a motion to allow deposition of the expert, and even if the expert is also the plaintiff's treating physician. The defense lawyer may also interview the plaintiff's treating physician who will not be an expert, but may not offer the physician any advice or tell the physician to disclose the information. The Committee did not offer an opinion on whether a defense lawyer may hire the plaintiff's treating physician as a defense expert, but implied that this could be permissible. [In LEO 1639, the Bar held that this Opinion was overruled by Va. Code ยง 8.01-399(D).] | 5/30/1989 |
1678
Print
|
| A lawyer (acting directly or through an expert witness) may not "advise the other party's expert witness not to testify," although the lawyer has no duty to take any measures in response to the lawyer's expert acting independently in convincing the opposing expert not to testify (unless the "tampering" is a "fraud on the tribunal" or the lawyer hired the expert "merely to harass or maliciously injure plaintiff by subverting plaintiff's employment" of an expert, which did not occur here). | 9/5/1996 |
1076
Print
|
| A lawyer may contact an adversary's expert witness, although "courtesy" would suggest that the lawyer advise the adversary's counsel. The Bar also indicated that a lawyer receiving "selected items" from an opponent's file from "some unknown third party" was not obligated to return the materials and could read and use them for the client's benefit (the Bar noted that "out of professional courtesy you should inform the opposing counsel that you have received these materials.") [LEO 1702 would require the lawyer to return the materials without reading them.] | 5/17/1988 |
ABA-378
Print
|
| Although the Model Rules do not specifically prohibit a lawyer from ex parte contacts with the adversary's expert, such contacts probably would be improper if the case were pending in federal court (or if the state had adopted a rule similar to the federal rule). Even if the interview is proper, the lawyer should not inquire into matters protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. | 11/8/1993 |