who are represented by a lawyer. Such a holding could have significant consequences beyond this case. Direct communication between parties, without the intermediation of their lawyers, is often a bad idea, regardless of whether any of the parties is a lawyer. On the other hand, direct communication between the principals — leaving the lawyers out of the room — is sometimes the path to settlement of a dispute. Under the principle implicitly embraced by the hearing judge, the latter option would never be available if one or more of the parties happened to be a member of the bar, even if not acting in that capacity in the dispute. We hesitate to say that Rule 4.2 always forbids such communication. See HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties, Inc., 715 F.Supp.2d 968, 972 & n. 1 (N.D.Cal.2010) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the issue has not been briefed in
holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations holding that under delaware law the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors holding that similar california rule did not bar corporate chairman who happened to be member of the bar from directly contacting management of adversary company in litigation about settlement as application of the rule in those circumstances effectively would prevent persons licensed to practice law  from serving as officers or directors in corporations and engaging in settlement conversations outside of the presence of counsel recognizing exceptions in rule 408 as applying to settlement agreements and the occurrence of settlement talks