Self-help is critical to a business in protecting its proprietary or confidential information. No court will treat business information more confidentially that the business has itself. As the Commonwealth’s highest court noted in USM v. Marson Fastener Corp.: “one who possesses a trade secret and wishes to protect it must act to preserve its secrecy.”

In our Summer 2002 newsletter, we discussed the trend in the Massachusetts courts and legislature of expanding the circumstances in which attorneys may contact and discuss matters subject to litigation with an opposing party’s employees. At the time, it was still unclear whether the applicable ethical rule prohibited an attorney from contacting former employees of an opponent about a matter being litigated, although at least one Massachusetts professional organization and several courts outside of Massachusetts had determined that such contact was permissible. Recently, however, the Commonwealth’s highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), addressed the issue and decided, not unexpectedly, that Rule 4.2 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct does not prohibit contact with former employees of an opposing party.

Much of the recent press coverage involving lawyers has focused on the negative aspects of the profession. It seems that every time I open the newspaper, I come across another article discussing massive attorney lay-offs or law firm closures. As a counter to this onslaught of negative publicity, I thought that I would focus this Partner’s Letter on a more positive topic, namely Hanify & King’s commitment to pro bono and public service programs.