While Daniel Leckrone may be both "an employee and an attorney forTPL", I always believed that KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE were TPL's attorneys in this matter.

If he is not an attorney in this matter, I can see no grounds to prohibit his communication with a public officer of HTC, in that he is acting as Chairman of TPL:

Rule 2-100 Communication With a Represented Party

(A) While representing a client, a member shall not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation with a party the member knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the member has the consent of the other lawyer.

(B) For purposes of this rule, a "party" includes:

(C) This rule shall not prohibit:

Discussion:

Rule 2-100 is intended to control communications between a member and persons the member knows to be represented by counsel unless a statutory scheme or case law will override the rule. There are a number of express statutory schemes which authorize communications between a member and person who would otherwise be subject to this rule. These statutes protect a variety of other rights such as the right of employees to organize and to engage in collective bargaining, employee health and safety, or equal employment opportunity. Other applicable law also includes the authority of government prosecutors and investigators to conduct criminal investigations, as limited by the relevant decisional law.

Rule 2-100 is not intended to prevent the parties themselves from communicating with respect to the subject matter of the representation, and nothing in the rule prevents a member from advising the client that such communication can be made. Moreover, the rule does not prohibit a member who is also a party to a legal matter from directly or indirectly communicating on his or her own behalf with a represented party. Such a member has independent rights as a party which should not be abrogated because of his or her professional status. To prevent any possible abuse in such situations, the counsel for the opposing party may advise that party (1) about the risks and benefits of communications with a lawyer-party, and (2) not to accept or engage in communications with the lawyer-party.

Rule 2-100 also addresses the situation in which member A is contacted by an opposing party who is represented and, because of dissatisfaction with that party's counsel, seeks A's independent advice. Since A is employed by the opposition, the member cannot give independent advice.

As used in paragraph (A), "the subject of the representation," "matter," and "party" are not limited to a litigation context.

Paragraph (B) is intended to apply only to persons employed at the time of the communication. (See Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v. State of California (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131 [261 Cal.Rptr. 493].)

Subparagraph (C)(2) is intended to permit a member to communicate with a party seeking to hire new counsel or to obtain a second opinion. A member contacted by such a party continues to be bound by other Rules of Professional Conduct. (See, e.g., rules 1-400 and 3-310.) (Amended by order of Supreme Court, operative September 14, 1992.)

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Current_Rules.gif&sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/Rules%20%26%20Regulations/Rules%20of%20Professional%20Conduct&sFileType=HTML&sCatHtmlPath=html/RPC_Current-Rules-2-100.html

Are COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP trying to muddy the water for what appears to be a perfectly legal communication between senior management?

.

.

.

Be well