ÿWPCl$ ’I„œÉ¼J!îÄ1JÍuf×ß×y¹<wµû1Á;0:‘6¡õïhÊñflr@†  Ÿ¡î ùî’¿—w™&Å¡9û¿Sº(Iv'µjzm:la”´Ô<&ÿô‘0j¦,Mø§ô£\w/÷D’Ñn ?¼±¹d*¶Œ1Ieù´Å|keƒ`i´.CªRð)B޶ÖMt3Á¼Ò2m Çêm~×|ȺՕCùSOß0€ ˆ»hÞHY~ÂâÊ·”åIxÄë<yd!¦ y{§©¹»œ’£ñû˜g襈JÕ:"b %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ U@Ð G ÆW Æ Æã Æ© #ÁoN0 0D2þvEtÈv…>ØÃ› 0¤±‰UÞUNæææ-4444444444444baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 0ëiiii BT T 0¤q D3! D-H! 0Ku!u! ASÀ!Æ" 0¤Ù" 0D}# A«Á#»V{-)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularûr')bk2ÄH¨3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  =Ý ƒR`Ó$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XŒÏX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ô`{òXXŒÏÔAccording€to€the€record,€Monceret€was€acquitted€of€a€criminal€assault€charge,€and€a€civil€action€filedÐ ° Ðby€Mealer€was€nonsuited.€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ôÝ ƒR`Ó$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XŒÏX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ô`{òXXŒÏÔPursuant€to€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€9,€ðð€1.3,€a€party€may€seek€review€of€the€hearing€panelððs€decision€by€filingÐ ° Ða€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€with€the€chancery€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„101€(1980).€€The€judgment€of€theÐ tÄ Ðchancery€court€may€then€be€appealed€to€this€Court. ¾Ý ƒR`Ó$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XŒÏX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ô`{òXXŒÏÔÔ‡ ô`{òòô`{ÔTennessee€adheres€to€the€Model€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility,€set€forth€in€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt€Rule€9.€€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€9.€€The€counterpart€to€DR€7„104€in€the€Model€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€is€RuleÐ tÄ Ð4.2.€€Model€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€Rule€4.2€(1999).€€Thus,€whether€following€the€Model€Code€or€the€ModelÐ 8ˆ ÐRules,€virtually€every€jurisdiction€adheres€to€the€ethical€principle€at€issue€in€this€case.€€òòE.g.óó,€Gregory€G.€Ô_ÔSarnoÔ_Ô,Ð üL ÐAnnotation,€òòCommunication€With€Party€Represented€by€Counsel€as€Ground€for€Disciplining€Attorneyóó,€26€A.L.R.4th€102Ð À Ð(1983€€&€Supp.€1999).Ô#†ô`{òò ô`{©#Ô {Ý ƒR`Ó$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€XŒÏX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ô`{òXXŒÏÔSimilarly,€the€ABA€opinion€indicates€that€if€a€party€informs€the€attorney€that€he€or€she€is€no€longerÐ ° Ðrepresented€by€counsel,€the€attorney€must€establish€ð ðreasonable€assuranceðð€that€the€information€is€accurate.€€The€mostÐ tÄ Ðeffective€way€of€doing€so€is€to€contact€the€partyððs€lawyer.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€News€Am.€Ô_ÔPublððgÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€974€S.W.2d€97€(Tex.€Ct.Ð 8ˆ ÐApp.€1998). ÎÝ ƒR`Ó$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€XŒÏX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ô`{òXXŒÏÔThis€factor€only€warrants€consideration€in€mitigation.€€The€language€in€the€Rule€is€sufficiently€clearÐ ° Ðto€provide€notice€of€what€conduct€is€prohibited€and€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€a€due€process€violation€as€alleged€inÐ tÄ ÐMonceretððs€brief€on€appeal. Ñ e Ñ(|3Åá$©©Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý Ý ƒR`Ó$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€XŒÏX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ô`{òXXŒÏÔÔ_ÔMonceretÔ_Ô€relies€upon€Tennessee€Formal€Ethics€Opinion€83„F„46€for€the€proposition€that€ð ða€lawyer€mayÐ ° Ðinterview€witnesses€or€prospective€witnesses€for€opposing€sides€without€the€prior€consent€of€opposing€counsel.ðð€€Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐEthics€Comm.€Formal€Op.€83„F„46€(1983).€€This€opinion,€however,€is€in€the€context€of€allowing€an€attorney€to€interviewÐ 8ˆ Ða€non„management€employee€without€the€consent€of€counsel€for€a€corporation€that€is€the€named€defendant€to€a€lawsuit.€Ð üL ÐIt€does€not€address€an€attorneyððs€interview€of€a€witness€who€the€attorney€knows€to€have€counsel€on€the€subject€ofÐ À Ðrepresentation. (ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular #Ñ#€CXÿÿd#Ñ- ù-(|G2`Ó$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€Xy|X»»Ô d(|3Åá$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Åá$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ t»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Çs»»»ÔÑ  ÑÓ=€Çs»Ð»dÐd=ÓÑ€!û#ÑÑ€ïOÑà@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  ÐÔ‡XŒÏX»¼ÇsÔÌò òÔ#†¼Çs»XXŒÏ’#ÔÓ  ÓA.€THOMAS€Ô_ÔMONCERETÔ_Ô€v.€THE€BOARD€OF€PROFESSIONALÐ À ÐRESPONSIBILITYÔ‡XŒÏX»¼ÇsÔó óÐ Ô$ ÐÓØÓÌà@o o ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Knox€CountyˆÐ Ô $ Ðà@_ _ ìàNo.€133879„3€€€€€€Irvin€H.€Ô_ÔKilcreaseÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€€ChancellorˆÐ À  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ƒ` A߈Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@º º ìàNo.€E1999„00545„SC„R3„CV€„€Filed€July€27,€2000ˆÐ Ï  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<V` AßÐ W§  Ðó óÌÔ#†¼Çs»XXŒÏV#ÔÔ€XŒÏX»¼ÇsÔThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€Knox€County€Chancery€Court,€which€affirmed€a€hearing€panelððs€rulingÐ R¢  Ðthat€the€appellant€violated€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€DR€7„104(A)(1)€by€deposing€a€witness€that€he€knewÐ >Ž Ðto€be€represented€by€counsel.€€We€hold€that€the€chancery€court€correctly€determined€that€the€termÐ *z Ðð ðpartyðð€used€in€DR€7„104(A)(1)€is€not€limited€to€the€named€plaintiff€or€defendant€in€a€lawsuit€andÐ f Ðmay€also€include€a€witness€who€is€represented€by€counsel.€€We€further€hold€that€the€protection€of€theÐ R ÐRule€cannot€be€waived€by€the€party€but€only€by€the€partyððs€lawyer.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÐ î> Ðjudgment.Ð Ú* ÐÌò òà@ÜÜ ìàDirect€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Knox€County€Chancery€Court€AffirmedˆÐ ² Ðó óÌòòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€Fòòrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,Ð ŠÚ ÐÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€William€M.€Barker,€óóand€òòJanice€M.€Holder,€JJ.óó,€joined.òòóóò òó óÐ vÆ ÐÌA.€Thomas€Ô_ÔMonceretÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð Nž ÐÌWilliam€W.€Hunt,€III,€Disciplinary€Counsel,€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility€of€the€SupremeÐ & v ÐCourt€of€Tennessee,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.Ð !b  ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ê":" ÐÌÔ‡ XŒÏXXXŒÏÔà  àThe€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€appellant,€A.€Thomas€Ô_ÔMonceretÔ_Ô,€violated€Tenn.€Sup.Ð Â$ $ ÐCt.€R.€8,€DR€7„104(A)(1),€which€states€in€part€that€a€lawyer€shall€not€ð ð[Ô_Ôc]ommunicateÔ_Ô€or€causeÐ ®%þ % Ðanother€to€communicate€on€the€subject€of€the€representation€with€a€party€the€lawyer€knows€to€beÐ š&ê!& Ðrepresented€by€a€lawyer€in€that€matter€unless€the€lawyer€has€the€prior€consent€of€the€lawyerÐ †'Ö"' Ðrepresenting€such€other€party€or€is€authorized€by€law€to€do€so.ðð€€òòId.óó€€à  àÐ r(Â#( ÐÌà  àA€three„member€hearing€panel€of€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility€determined€thatÐ J*š%* ÐÔ_ÔMonceretÔ_Ô€violated€DR€7„104(A)(1)€by€issuing€a€subpoena€and€deposing€a€witness€that€he€knew€toÐ 6+†&+ Ðbe€represented€by€counsel.€€The€Panel€concluded€that€the€witness€was€included€in€the€term€ð ðpartyððÐ ",r', Ðas€used€in€the€rule€and€that€the€issuance€of€a€subpoena€for€a€deposition€did€not€satisfy€the€exceptionÐ -^(-ý ÐÑ!û#Ñâ !âÑ8€zTXXdê»»d 8Ñâ !âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôð ðor€is€authorized€by€law€to€do€so.ðð€€The€Knox€County€Chancery€Court€affirmed€both€the€hearingÐ ° Ðpanelððs€ruling€and€its€sanction€of€a€private€admonition.Ð œì ÐÌà  à€After€consideration€of€the€record€and€authority,€we€conclude€that€the€hearing€panel€and€theÐ tÄ Ðchancery€court€correctly€determined€that€the€term€ð ðpartyðð€is€not€limited€to€the€named€plaintiff(s)€orÐ `° Ðdefendant(s)€in€a€suit€and€may€include€a€witness€who€is€represented€by€counsel.€€We€further€concludeÐ L œ Ðthat€the€evidence€in€this€case€supports€the€findings€of€the€hearing€panel€and€chancery€court€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðtherefore€affirm€the€judgment.Ð $ t ÐÌà@%ìàòòò òBACKGROUNDóóˆÐ ü L  ÐÌó óà  àThe€appellant,€A.€Thomas€Monceret,€a€lawyer€practicing€in€Knoxville,€successfully€obtainedÐ Ô$  Ða€judgment€on€behalf€of€his€clients€in€a€breach€of€contract€suit€against€Frank€Wankowski.€€MonceretÐ À  Ðthereafter€initiated€enforcement€proceedings€when€Wankowski€failed€to€pay€the€judgment.€€In€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcourse€of€the€enforcement€proceedings,€Monceret€discovered€that€a€business€known€as€FinancialÐ ˜è  ÐIntensive€Care€Corporation€(FICC)€engaged€in€collections€work€for€Wankowski.€€Monceret€causedÐ „Ô  Ðan€attachment€to€issue€against€the€accounts€of€FICC€that€were€for€the€benefit€of€Wankowski€and/orÐ pÀ Ðhis€businesses.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àMonceret€issued€a€subpoena€òòducestecumóó€seeking€to€depose€Diane€Mealer,€an€employee€andÐ 4„ Ðofficer€of€FICC,€and€requesting€FICCððs€records€regarding€Wankowski€and/or€his€businesses.€€TheÐ  p Ðdeposition€was€initially€scheduled€for€August€10,€1988.€€Prior€to€the€deposition,€an€attorneyÐ  \ Ðrepresenting€Mealer€telephoned€Monceret€and€asked€that€the€deposition€be€reset€to€another€date.€Ð øH ÐMonceret€agreed€and€asked€that€Mealerððs€lawyer€contact€him€to€reschedule€the€deposition.€AlthoughÐ ä4 ÐMealerððs€attorney€did€not€call€to€reschedule,€Mealer€appeared€for€the€deposition€without€her€lawyerÐ Ð  Ðon€August€10,€1988.€€According€to€Monceret,€he€discussed€the€absence€of€Mealerððs€attorney€withÐ ¼  ÐMealer€before€beginning€the€deposition,€and€Mealer€elected€to€proceed€in€the€absence€of€counsel.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àMonceret€began€the€deposition€by€asking€numerous€questions€regarding€the€nature€ofÐ €Ð ÐMealerððs€duties€with€FICC€and€the€extent€of€her€involvement€with€accounts€collected€for€and€moniesÐ l¼ Ðdirected€to€Wankowski.€€Mealer,€an€executive€vice€president,€stated€that€FICC€engaged€inÐ X ¨ Ðinvestment,€consulting,€and€collection€services.€€She€was€for€the€large€part€unable€to€answerÐ D!” Ðquestions€regarding€Wankowski.€€She€stated€that€she€did€not€bring€any€business€records€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðdeposition€despite€the€fact€that€Monceret€had€issued€a€subpoena€òòduces€tecumóó.€€She€stated€that€theÐ #l! Ðrecords€were€not€in€her€possession€and€not€in€the€possession€of€FICC€because€they€had€been€returnedÐ $X" Ðto€Wankowski€and€his€attorney.€€When€Monceret€asked€for€further€explanation,€Mealer€frequentlyÐ ô$D # Ðindicated€that€she€did€not€understand€the€question€or€did€not€have€the€knowledge€to€answer€theÐ à%0!$ Ðquestion.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àAfter€several€questions€regarding€Mealerððs€involvement€with€collecting€and€depositing€fundsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrelated€to€Wankowskiððs€business,€the€following€exchange€took€place:€€€€€€€€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àHow€long€have€you€been€in€this€type€of€business?Ðh+¸&*` (#` (# Їà  àA.€à0 ` àCollecting?€€Since€1980.а` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àJust€wherever€the€truth€of€the€question€is€rather€than€play€with€it.ЈØ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.à0 ` à1980.€€I€am€not€playing€with€you,€sir.Ð`°` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àYou€think€itððs€funny€when€you€smiled€and€used€the€word,€ð ðcollected?ðð€Ð8 ˆ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.à0 ` àWell,€I€donðð€t€know€what€youð!ðÐ `` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àI€asked€the€question,€how€long€have€you€been€in€the€business;€how€long€have€youÐ è 8  Ðbeen€in€the€business,€Ms.€Mealer?ÐÔ$ ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.à0 ` àòòIf€you€are€going€to€badger€me,€then€we€will€reschedule€this€and€I€will€have€myÐ ¬ü  Ðattorney€here€to€do€thisð!ðóóИè ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àIf€you€donððt€sit€here€and€answer€these€questions,€I€am€going€to€ask€the€Judge€to€putÐ pÀ Ðyou€in€jail,€maððam.Ð\¬` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.à0 ` àThatððs€fine.Ð4„` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àYou€are€under€a€court€order€to€be€here.Ð \` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.à0 ` àAll€right,€sir.Ðä4` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àHow€long€have€you€been€in€the€business?м ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.à0 ` àI€refuse€to€answer.€Ð”ä` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àYou€do?Ðl¼` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.à0 ` àYes,€sir.ÐD!”` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àThe€funds€that€you€had€in€the€banking€account€during€the€period€of€time€that€youÐ #l! Ðwere€paying€Mr.€Wankowskiððs€accounts,€were€those,€were€those€checks€paid€fromÐ $X" Ðthe€funds€you€collected€on€accounts€receivable€and€the€monies€that€were€taken€fromÐ ô$D # Ðthe€Post€Office€Box€only?Ðà%0!$` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.à0 ` àI€refuse€to€answer.и'#&` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.à0 ` àIs€it€futile€for€me€to€go€forward€and€ask€other€questions;€are€you€going€to€refuse€toÐ )à$( Ðanswer€those?Ð|*Ì%)` (#` (# ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àA.à0 ` àòòThe€only€thing€I€have€to€say€for€the€record,€if€you€care€to€keep€badgering€me,€then€IÐ ° Ðshould€have€an€attorney€here.óóМì` (#` (# ÐÌWhen€the€deposition€ended,€Monceret€told€Mealer€that€she€was€not€dismissed€and€that€she€could€notÐ tÄ Ðleave€the€office.€€He€also€told€Mealer€that€she€could€not€use€the€telephone€in€his€office€and€preventedÐ `° Ðher€from€doing€so.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€its€factual€findings,€the€hearing€panel€described€Mealer€as€ð ðconversationalðð€during€theÐ $ t Ðdeposition€and€not€ð ðliterally€responsiveðð€to€questioning.€€It€described€Monceret€as€ð ðsarcastic€andÐ  ` Ðcondescending.ðð€€The€Panel€concluded€that€the€term€ð ðpartyðð€as€used€in€DR€7„104(A)(1)€should€beÐ ü L  Ðconstrued€broadly€to€include€a€witness€who€is€represented€by€counsel€and€that€Monceret€violated€theÐ è 8  Ðrule€by€deposing€Mealer.€€In€rejecting€Monceretððs€argument€that€Mealer€had€waived€the€presence€ofÐ Ô$  Ðcounsel,€the€Panel€found€that€the€Mealer€revoked€the€waiver€but€that€Monceret€continued€to€askÐ À  Ðquestions.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àMonceret€sought€review€of€the€hearing€panelððs€judgment€by€filing€a€petition€for€writ€ofÐ „Ô  Ðcertiorari€with€the€chancery€court.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€chancellor€adopted€the€hearing€panelððs€factual€findings€andÐ pÀ Ðconclusions€of€law€and€upheld€the€sanction€imposed.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àMonceret€has€now€appealed€to€this€Court.€€He€argues€that€Mealer€was€a€witness€and€not€aÐ 4„ Ðð ðpartyðð€to€the€proceedings€as€that€term€is€used€in€DR€7„104(A)(1);€that€even€if€Mealer€was€a€party,Ð  p Ðshe€waived€her€right€to€the€presence€of€counsel€before€the€deposition€began;€and€that€even€if€MealerÐ  \ Ðwas€a€party,€the€subpoena€and€deposition€was€ð ðauthorized€by€law.ðð€€The€Board€maintains€that€aÐ øH Ðð ðpartyðð€as€used€in€the€Rule€includes€any€person€who€is€represented€by€counsel;€that€even€if€MealerÐ ä4 Ðwaived€her€right€to€the€presence€of€counsel€before€the€deposition,€she€revoked€the€waiver€during€theÐ Ð  Ðcourse€of€the€deposition;€and€that€the€disciplinary€rule€cannot€be€circumvented€by€issuing€aÐ ¼  Ðsubpoena.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà@òò&ìàòòò òANALYSISóóó óˆÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€reviewing€the€disciplinary€rule€at€issue€in€this€case,€DR€7„Ð X ¨ Ð104(A)(1),€which€states:Ð D!” ÐÌò òà8  àó óDR€7„104.€€Communicating€with€One€of€Adverse€Interest.ò ò€ð!ð€ó ó(A)€During€the€courseÐ #l! Ðof€a€lawyerððs€representation€of€a€client€a€lawyer€shall€not:Ð $\"Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ ø$H # Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€Communicate€or€cause€another€to€communicate€on€the€subject€of€theÐ ° Ðâ ârepresentation€with€a€party€the€lawyer€knows€to€be€represented€by€a€lawyer€in€thatÐ œì Ðmatter€unless€the€lawyer€has€the€prior€consent€of€the€lawyer€representing€such€otherÐ ˆØ Ðparty€or€is€authorized€to€do€so.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌÌòòId.óó€€The€main€function€of€the€disciplinary€rule׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€is€to€preserve€the€proper€functioning€of€the€legalÐ 8 ˆ Ðsystem€and€to€ð ðprevent€situations€in€which€a€represented€party€may€be€taken€advantage€of€by€adverseÐ $ t Ðcounsel.ðð€€òòWright€by€Wright€v.€Group€Health€Hosp.óó,€691€P.2d€564,€567€(Wash.€1984).€€As€stated€inÐ  ` Ðthe€related€ethical€consideration,€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€7„18,€ð ð[t]he€legal€system€in€its€broadestÐ ü L  Ðsense€functions€best€when€persons€in€need€of€legal€advice€or€assistance€are€represented€by€their€ownÐ è 8  Ðcounsel.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€initial€question€in€this€case€deals€with€the€meaning€and€scope€of€ð ðpartyðð€as€used€in€theÐ ¬ü  ÐRule.€€According€to€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€1122€(6òòthóó€ed.€1990),€ð ðpartyðð€includes€any€ð ðpersonÐ ˜è  Ðconcerned€or€having€or€taking€part€in€any€affair,€matter,€transaction,€or€proceeding,€consideredÐ „Ô  Ðindividually.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Another€source,€however,€contains€multiple€definitions€of€ð ðparty,ðð€including:€ð ðaÐ pÀ Ðperson€who€participates€or€is€concerned€in€an€action,€proceeding,€plan,€etc.,ðð€and€ð ðeither€of€theÐ \¬ Ðpersons€or€sides€concerned€in€a€legal€matter.ðð€€òòWebsterððs€New€World€Dictionaryóó€1037€(2d€ed.€1980).€Ð H˜ ÐAccordingly,€to€the€extent€that€the€term€is€reasonably€susceptible€to€more€than€one€meaning,€it€isÐ 4„ Ðambiguous.€€€€€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€a€formal€opinion€released€on€July€28,€1995,€the€American€Bar€Association€agreed€that€theÐ øH Ðword€ð ðpartyðð€as€used€in€the€rule€is€ambiguous€and€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€key€to€resolving€this€ambiguity.Ð ä4 Ð.€.€is€consideration€of€the€purposes€intended€to€be€served€by€the€Rule.ðð€€ABA€Comm.€on€Ethics€andÐ Ð  ÐProfessional€Responsibility,€Formal€Op.€95„396€(1995).€€The€ABA€observed€that€interests€ofÐ ¼  Ðð ðprotecting€the€client„lawyer€relationship€from€interference€by€[adverse]€counsel,€and€protectingÐ ¨ø Ðclients€from€disclosing€privileged€information€that€might€harm€their€interests,€are€not€limited€toÐ ”ä Ðcircumstances€where€the€represented€person€is€a€party€to€an€adjudicative€or€other€formal€proceeding.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐòòId.óó€€It€concluded:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà ` àIf€the€Rule€is€to€serve€its€intended€purpose,€it€should€have€broad€coverage,Ð D!” Ðprotecting€not€only€parties€to€a€negotiation€and€parties€to€formal€adjudicativeÐ 0"€  Ðproceedings,€but€any€person€who€has€retained€counsel€in€a€matter€and€whose€interestsÐ #l! Ðare€potentially€distinct€from€those€of€the€client€on€whose€behalf€the€communicatingÐ $X" Ðlawyer€is€acting.€€Such€persons€would€include€targets€of€criminal€investigations,Ð ô$D # Ðpotential€parties€to€civil€litigation,€and€òòwitnesses€who€have€hired€counsel€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðmatter.óó€€In€sum,€the€Ruleððs€coverage€should€extend€to€òòanyóó€represented€person€who€hasÐ ° Ðan€interest€in€the€matter€to€be€discussed,€who€is€represented€with€respect€to€thatÐ œì Ðinterest,€and€who€is€sought€to€be€communicated€with€by€a€lawyer€representingÐ ˆØ Ðanother€party.€òòóóÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€(emphasis€added)€(footnotes€omitted).Ô#†XŒÏXX XŒÏí #ÔÔ‡ XŒÏXXXŒÏÔÐ L œ ÐÓÓà  àOther€authority€is€in€accord€with€the€ABA€formal€opinion.€€One€treatise€on€legal€ethics€statesÐ $ t Ðthat€ð ðalthough€the€matter€is€not€entirely€clear€under€the€Code,€probably€DR€7„104(A)(1)€.€.€.€prohibitsÐ  ` Ðcontact€with€òòanyóó€represented€person.€.€.€.ðð€€Charles€W.€Wolfram,€òòModern€Legal€Ethicsóó€611€(1986).€Ð ü L  ÐIn€other€words,€ð ð[t]he€lawyerism€party€sometimes€refers€only€to€parties€in€litigation€but€evidently€isÐ è 8  Ðhere€intended€to€refer€broadly€to€any€ððpersonðð€represented€by€a€lawyer€in€a€matter.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€611€n.33;Ð Ô$  Ðòòsee€alsoóó€John€Leubsdorf,€òòCommunicating€with€Another€Lawyerððs€Client:€The€Lawyerððs€Veto€and€theÐ À  ÐClientððs€Interestóó,€127€U.€Pa.€L.€Rev.€683€(1979).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€a€large€majority€of€courts€in€a€variety€of€circumstances,€both€civil€and€criminal,Ð „Ô  Ðhave€held€that€a€ð ðpartyðð€is€not€limited€to€a€named€plaintiff€or€defendant.€€As€one€court€has€said:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  à[W]e€have€no€trouble€concluding€that€the€definition€of€ð ðpartiesðð€under€the€rule€is€notÐ H˜ Ðrestricted€to€named€parties€in€a€lawsuit.€€The€language€of€the€rule€suggests€noÐ 4„ Ðlimitation€on€the€word€ð ðparty.ðð€€Instead,€the€rule€prohibits€communication€ð ðon€theÐ  p Ðsubject€on€the€representationðð€with€a€party€that€is€represented€by€a€lawyer€ð ðin€thatÐ  \ Ðmatter.ðð€€The€use€of€the€words€ð ðsubjectðð€and€ð ðmatter,ðð€rather€than€ð ðlawsuit,ððÐ øH Ðindicates€that€DR€7„104€applies€to€all€transactions€for€which€lawyers€are€hired€andÐ ä4 Ðcannot€be€construed€to€imply€that€its€application€is€limited€to€cases€where€suit€is€filed.€Ð Ð  ЀÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIn€re€Illuzzióó,€616€A.2d€233,€236€(Vt.€1992);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHill€v.€St.€Louis€Univ.óó,€123€F.3d€1144€(8òòthóó€Cir.Ð ”ä Ð1997)€(rule€applies€to€professor/employee€where€university€is€the€named€defendant);€òòWright€byÐ €Ð ÐWrightóó,€691€P.2d€564€(Wash.€1984)€(rule€applies€to€managing€employees€who€worked€for€aÐ l¼ Ðcorporation€that€was€the€named€defendant);€Sarno,€26€A.L.R.4th€at€108„11.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ*°,XŽX $€%ŒX°œX*Óà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€term€ð ðpartyðð€as€used€in€DR€7„104(A)(1)€is€not€limited€toÐ 0"€  Ðthe€named€plaintiff€or€defendant€in€a€pending€lawsuit.€€The€language€used€in€the€rule€does€not€limitÐ #l! Ðits€applicability€to€named€plaintiffs€or€defendants€in€a€filed€lawsuit.€€Moreover,€the€caption€to€theÐ $X" ÐRule€states€ð ðcommunicating€with€òòoneóó€of€adverse€interest.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€DR€7„104€(emphasisÐ ô$D # Ðadded).€€Finally,€we€agree€with€the€above€authority€that€the€Rule€must€be€interpreted€consistentlyÐ à%0!$ Ðwith€the€purposes€of€the€Rule.€€As€expressed€in€ethical€consideration€7„18,€which€is€the€companionÐ ° Ðto€DR€7„104(A)(1),€ð ð[t]he€legal€system€in€its€broadest€sense€functions€best€when€persons€in€need€ofÐ œì Ðlegal€advice€or€assistance€are€represented€by€their€own€counsel.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€7„18.€€WeÐ ˆØ Ðtherefore€hold€that€an€attorney€may€not€communicate€or€cause€another€to€communicate€on€the€subjectÐ tÄ Ðof€representation€with€a€witness€the€attorney€knows€to€be€represented€by€counsel.Ð `° ÐÌà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€application€of€this€rule€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€€The€record€clearlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðsupports€the€findings€of€the€chancery€court€and€hearing€panel€that€Monceret€knew€that€Mealer€wasÐ $ t Ðrepresented€by€counsel€and€that€the€deposition€pertained€to€the€subject€of€Monceretððs€representation.€Ð  ` ÐMonceret€does€not€contest€these€findings,€but€rather,€argues€that€Mealer€waived€her€right€to€counsel.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€Board€tacitly€goes€along€with€this€position€by€arguing€that€Mealer€withdrew€her€waiver€near€theÐ è 8  Ðend€of€the€deposition€but€that€Monceret€continued€to€ask€questions.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€waiver€argument€in€the€context€of€DR€7„104(A)(1)€is€misplaced.€€First,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðlanguage€of€the€Rule€specifically€requires€the€consent€of€the€partyððs€òòlawyeróó,€and€there€is€no€indicationÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€party€alone€may€waive€the€protections€of€the€Rule.€€This€interpretation€reflects€that€adoptedÐ „Ô  Ðby€the€ABA€in€its€formal€opinion:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  à[The€Rule]€exempts€communications€if€the€lawyer€representing€the€contacted€personÐ H˜ Ðconsents;€but€the€Rule€says€nothing€about€permitting€the€represented€person€to€foregoÐ 4„ Ðthe€protection€accorded€him€by€the€ethical€responsibilities€of€the€communicatingÐ  p Ðlawyer.€€This€Committee€concluded€in€Formal€Opinion€108€(1934)€that€the€anti„Ð  \ Ðcontact€rule€does€not€contemplate€such€a€waiver.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  à...Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àWhile€the€Committee€recognizes€that€not€allowing€the€represented€person€to€waiveÐ ¼  Ðthe€Ruleððs€protection€may€be€seen€as€paternalistic,€it€believes€that€[the]€Rule€requiresÐ ¨ø Ðthat€result.€€Reflecting€the€concern€that€the€represented€person€may€not€be€in€aÐ ”ä Ðposition€to€make€an€informed€waiver€of€the€presence€of€counsel,€the€Rule€operatesÐ €Ð Ðto€reduce€the€likelihood€of€the€represented€person€in€communications€that€mightÐ l¼ Ðultimately€prove€harmful€to€her€cause€by€imposing€a€strict€ethical€obligation€on€theÐ X ¨ Ðcommunication.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌABA€Comm.€on€Ethics€and€Professional€Responsibility,€Formal€Op.€95„396.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAn€apparent€majority€of€courts€have€followed€this€interpretation€and€have€held€that€the€RuleÐ ô$D # Ðis€not€waived€simply€because€the€represented€person€initiates€contact€or€is€otherwise€willing€toÐ à%0!$ Ðcommunicate.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Lopezóó,€4€F.3d€1455€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1993);€òòPeople€v.€Greenóó,€274€N.W.2dÐ Ì&"% Ð448€(Mich.€1979);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€600€N.W.2d€457€(Minn.€1999);€òòIn€re€News€Am.€Publððg,€Inc.óó,€974Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€97€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€As€the€òòLopezóó€court€observed,€ð ð[t]he€rule€against€communicatingÐ œì Ðwith€represented€parties€is€fundamentally€concerned€with€the€òòdutiesóó€of€attorneys,€not€with€the€òòrightsóóÐ ˆØ Ðof€parties.ðð€€òòLopezóó,€4€F.3d€at€1462.€€In€short,€the€ethical€responsibility€rests€with€the€attorney€and€notÐ tÄ Ðthe€layman.Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€this€authority,€we€reject€Monceretððs€contention€that€even€though€he€did€not€consultÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€Mealerððs€attorney,€Mealer€herself€waived€her€right€to€the€presence€of€counsel.€€Such€a€holdingÐ $ t Ðwould€be€inconsistent€with€the€plain€language€and€spirit€of€DR€7„104(A)(1).€€We€likewise€rejectÐ  ` ÐMonceretððs€argument€that€the€issuance€of€a€subpoena€satisfies€the€ð ðauthorized€by€lawðð€exceptionÐ ü L  Ðfound€in€DR€7„104(A)(1).€€Such€a€conclusion€would€minimize€the€attorneyððs€ethical€obligation€underÐ è 8  Ðthe€Rule€and€would€create€an€exception€that€would€threaten€to€swallow€the€Rule.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€judgment€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€chancery€court€upholding€the€hearing€panelððs€findings€that€Monceret€violated€DR€7„104(A)(1).€Ð ˜è  ÐHaving€so€held,€however,€we€observe€that€several€of€Monceretððs€contentions€do€bear€considerationÐ „Ô  Ðin€terms€of€mitigation.€€First,€there€was€no€authority€in€Tennessee€to€supplement€or€explain€DR€7„Ð pÀ Ð104(A)(1)€at€the€time€Monceret€deposed€Mealer.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€ABA€Formal€Opinion€relied€on€in€thisÐ \¬ Ðopinion€and€by€numerous€other€courts€was€not€released€until€1995,€years€after€the€events€in€this€case.€Ð H˜ ÐMoreover,€there€is€apparently€no€dispute€that€Monceret€discussed€the€presence€of€counsel€withÐ 4„ ÐMealer€before€the€deposition€and€that€Mealer€elected€to€proceed€without€counsel.€€We€concludeÐ  p Ðnonetheless€that€Monceret€knew€that€Mealer€was€represented€by€counsel€and€that€this€knowledgeÐ  \ Ðtriggered€ethical€responsibilities€under€DR€7„104(A)(1)€irrespective€of€Mealerððs€actions.€Ð øH ÐAccordingly,€the€private€admonition,€which€is€the€least€severe€form€of€sanction,€was€appropriate.Ð ä4 ÐÌÌÌ€à@FF%ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ ”ä ÐóóÌà  àó óWe€conclude€that€DR€7„104(A)(1)€prohibits€an€attorney€from€communicating€with€a€partyÐ pÀ Ðthe€attorney€knows€to€be€represented€by€counsel€unless€permitted€to€do€by€the€partyððs€counsel.€€WeÐ \ ¬ Ðhave€further€concluded€that€ð ðpartyðð€as€used€in€the€Rule€includes€a€witness€who€is€represented€byÐ H!˜ Ðcounsel.€€Finally,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€supports€the€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€hearingÐ 4"„  Ðpanel€and€chancery€court€that€Monceret€violated€DR€7„104(A)(1).€€€The€judgment€is€affirmed.€€CostsÐ  #p! Ðare€assessed€against€the€appellant,€A.€Thomas€Monceret,€for€which€execution€shall€issue€if€necessary.ò òÐ  $\" Ðó óÔ#†XŒÏXX XŒÏ€D#ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ¼' #& ÐÑïO Ñâ âÑe°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICE