Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
In-House Counsel's Wrongful Discharge Action Under The Public Policy Exception And Retaliatory Discharge Doctrine, Raymis H.C. Kim
In-House Counsel's Wrongful Discharge Action Under The Public Policy Exception And Retaliatory Discharge Doctrine, Raymis H.C. Kim
Washington Law Review
Most courts hold that in-house counsel have no cause of action under public policy or retaliatory discharge exceptions to the at-will employment rule. This is true even when they are discharged in contravention of a clearly mandated public policy. These courts have rationalized that such recognition would be contrary to the at-will nature of attorney-client employment and would have an adverse effect on the attorney-client relationship. This Comment proposes that courts should extend the public policy exception and retaliatory discharge doctrine to in-house counsel to protect the public from illegal corporate acts and provide relief to in-house counsel.
Leaving Your Speech Rights At The Bar—Gentile V. State Bar, 111 S. Ct. 2720 (1991), Lester Porter Jr.
Leaving Your Speech Rights At The Bar—Gentile V. State Bar, 111 S. Ct. 2720 (1991), Lester Porter Jr.
Washington Law Review
In Gentile v. State Bar the Supreme Court voided an attorney disciplinary rule regulating trial publicity for vagueness. The Court, however, upheld the substantive standard employed by the rule to identify dangerous speech. This standard restricts more attorney comments to the media than the Court has allowed for the press or public. This Note argues that the standard upheld in Gentile fails First Amendment scrutiny and proposes a response for states reviewing their professional disciplinary rules in light of Gentile. Adoption of this proposal will mitigate the danger of prejudicial trial publicity while recognizing the benefits of attorney publicity.