Court Opinion

ID: 9681144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:44:36.412505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:21.105717
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because there is no convincing evidence that the temporary employment service is needed or of any benefit to the public or the legal profession.
There is no reason to believe that the traditional method used by new attorneys to approach law firms seeking employment requires intervention by a profit-making employment placement agency. Attorneys who have limited time or who wish to restrict their legal associations can do so freely on an individual basis as they have done for centuries and are still doing today.
The temporary employment service would clearly interfere with the exercise of a lawyer’s professional independence. The temporary placement agency is also a fertile source of ethical violations in regard to referrals. See DR 2-103.
Only three areas in this nation have permitted the temporary employment agency posture. The mere fact that the American Bar Association has determined that such an arrangement does not violate the ABA Model Code of Professional Conduct is not persuasive. Kentucky is not bound in any way by the ABA decision. Even the three bar associations which have permitted temporary services similar to that proposed here have done so with serious reservations. The action of the majority is a step in the wrong direction. It tends to reduce the professional image of lawyers and cheapens the sacred responsibility of lawyer to client.
COMBS and VANCE, JJ., join in this dissent.