This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P filed a complaint against D for discrimination on behalf of its client, Stanford, a sergeant with the Harvard University police department (HUPD). Stanford alleged that D and its police chief, Francis Riley, discriminated against her on the basis of gender and in reprisal for earlier complaints of discrimination. P communicated ex parte with five employees of the HUPD: two lieutenants, two patrol officers, and a dispatcher. It was not claimed that any of the five employees were involved in the alleged discrimination or retaliation against Stanford or exercised management authority with respect to the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory acts. D motioned for sanctions. The commission ruled that P’s ex parte contacts with all five employees violated rule 4.2, but declined to issue sanctions for these violations. P removed the case to the Superior Court, where D filed a motion seeking sanctions for the same violations of rule 4.2 on which the commission had previously ruled. The Court held that P MR&W violated the rule with respect to all five employees, prohibited P from using the affidavits it had procured during the interviews, and awarded D attorney's fees and costs of $94,418.14. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.