Casey said he did not think the ruling would significantly impact Stanford’s case against Harvard.

“It could possibly have a negative effect,” Casey said. “But at the end of the day I’m confident that through cross-examination and testimony of other witnesses, the jury will have basis for making an informed and appropriate decision.”

According to Sibbison, the broadest implication of the ruling is the effect it will have on civil rights claims.

“What this means is that lawyers are now able to talk to insider eyewitnesses to corporate wrongdoing without fear of punishment,” Sibbison said.

But Casey said the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision could compromise the formal, established procedure for acquiring testimony.

“With this ruling, I am concerned that the process of litigation is going to be substantially changed, and I fear not for the better,” he said. “It’s going to rely on conversations that take place in an unbalanced setting, where people who can speak on behalf of an institution can do so without benefit of counsel from that institution.”

Regardless, both sides said the ruling will have a major impact on future court cases.

Sibbison said it will influence decisions across the country.

“Our Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts is respected all over the country. It’s the oldest one and has a reputation of high intellectual standing,” she said. “Because these battles over this ethical code are going on all over the country, this decision will influence courts in other states.”

HUPD could not be reached for comment yesterday.

—Staff writer Jenifer L. Steinhardt can be reached at steinhar@fas.harvard.edu.