Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortattorneywrongful termination
tortplaintiffdefendantattorneystatutemotionmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Lindenbaum v. State Bar, 26 Cal.2d 565, 160 P.2d 9
View Case »
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers v. Henry, 276 Ga. 571, 581 S.E.2d 37, 03 FCDR 1560
View Case »
State ex rel. Dudek v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 34 Wis.2d 559, 150 N.W.2d 387, 35 A.L.R.3d 377
View Case »
In re Riehlmann, 891 So.2d 1239, 2004-0680 (La. 1/19/05)
View Case »
Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal.App.4th 930, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5507, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6551, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7523, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., 185 Ill.2d 372, 706 N.E.2d 491, 235 Ill.Dec. 936, 78 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1160, 137 Lab.Cas. P 58,562, 14 IER Cases 1160

Facts

Alan P. Jacobson was hired as an associate attorney at Knepper & Moga, P.C. in July 1994. After discovering that the firm was filing consumer debt collection actions in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Illinois Collection Agency Act, Jacobson reported these practices to a principal partner, James Knepper. Despite assurances that the issues would be remedied, Jacobson was later relieved of his responsibilities and subsequently terminated after reiterating his concerns about the firm's practices.

In July 1994, plaintiff was hired as an associate attorney of the firm. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff discovered that the firm was filing consumer debt collection actions in violation of the venue provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2)(B) (1988)) and the Illinois Collection Agency Act (225 ILCS 425/9(a)(20) (West 1994)). Plaintiff spoke with James Knepper, one of the firm's principal partners, regarding the filing practice and was advised that the matter would be remedied.

Issue

Whether an attorney who has been discharged by his law firm employer should be allowed the remedy of an action for retaliatory discharge.

Do the holdings in [Herbster] and [Balla] prevent an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Illinois from maintaining a cause of action for the Tort of Retaliatory Discharge against his non-client law firm employer due to the pre-eminence of the Rules of Professional Conduct?

Rule

An attorney may not maintain a cause of action for retaliatory discharge against their non-client law firm employer due to the preeminence of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Thus, we hold that plaintiff, as a licensed attorney employed as such by the defendant law firm, cannot maintain a cause of action for retaliatory discharge because the ethical obligations imposed by the Rules of Professional Conduct provide adequate safeguards to the public policy implicated in this case.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the ethical obligations imposed on attorneys under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, which it found provided adequate safeguards for public policy. The court noted that the tort of retaliatory discharge is a limited cause of action and that the existing ethical framework sufficiently protects the interests of the public without extending the tort to attorneys.

Therefore, the attorney's ethical obligations serve to adequately protect the public policy established by the collection statutes. Because sufficient safeguards exist in this situation, it is unnecessary to expand the limited and narrow tort of retaliatory discharge to the employee attorney.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts, holding that Jacobson could not maintain a cause of action for retaliatory discharge against the law firm.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts and remand this cause with directions that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted.

Who won?

Knepper & Moga, P.C. prevailed in the case because the court determined that the ethical obligations of attorneys provided sufficient protection against wrongful termination, negating the need for a retaliatory discharge claim.

The majority concludes that an attorney's obligation to follow the Rules of Professional Responsibility should not be the foundation for a claim of retaliatory discharge.

You must be