Professional Conduct. This Court applies the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals. See D.Md.R. 704. Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 states: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so. The official Comment to the Rule states: In the case of an organization, this Rule prohibits communications by a lawyer for one party concerning the matter in representation with persons having a managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization, and with any other person whose act or omission in 753 (D.Md.1997) (Davis, J.) (<HOLDING>), and Camden v. Maryland, 910 F.Supp. 1115,
holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum holding that where an spa does not mention former employees but only current employees and a complaint only alleges that former employees were solicited there is no breach of a nonsolicitation clause holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts holding that interests of plaintiffs former employees of defendant company in combating discriminatory policies were coextensive with the interest of all former and present employees subjected to the discriminatory policy holding that rule 42 did apply to ex parte contacts with certain former employees of represented party