Court Opinion

ID: 9534485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:40:15.491064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:53.426557
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the decision of my colleagues. In concluding that the plaintiff attorney, serving as corporate in-house counsel, should not be allowed a claim for retaliatory discharge, the majority first reasons that the public policy implicated in this case, i.e., protecting the lives and property of Illinois citizens, is adequately safeguarded by the lawyer’s ethical obligation to reveal information about a client as necessary to prevent acts that would result in death or serious bodily harm (134 Ill. 2d R 1.6(b)). I find this reasoning fatally flawed. The majority so reasons because, as a matter of law, an attorney cannot even contemplate ignoring his ethical obligations in favor of continuing in his employment. I agree with this conclusion “as a matter of law.” However, to say that the categorical nature of ethical obligations is sufficient to ensure that the ethical obligations will be satisfied simply ignores reality. Specifically, it ignores that, as unfortunate for society as it may be, attorneys are no less human than nonattorneys and, thus, no less given to the temptation to either ignore or rationalize away their ethical obligations when complying therewith may render them unable to feed and support their families. I would like to believe, as my colleagues apparently conclude, that attorneys will always “do the right thing” because the law says that they must. However, my knowledge of human nature, which is not much greater than the average layman’s, arid, sadly, the recent scandals involving the bench and bar of Illinois are more than sufficient to dispel such a belief. Just as the ethical obligations of the lawyers and judges involved in those scandals were inadequate to ensure that they would not break the law, I am afraid that the lawyer’s ethical obligation to “blow the whistle” is likewise an inadequate safeguard for the public policy of protecting lives and property of Illinois citizens. As reluctant as I am to concede it, the fact is that this court must take whatever steps it can, within the bounds of the law, to give lawyers incentives to abide by their ethical obligations, beyond the satisfaction inherent in their doing so. We cannot continue to delude ourselves and the people of the State of Illinois that attorneys’ ethical duties, alone, are always sufficient to guarantee that lawyers will “do the right thing.” In the context of this case, where doing “the right thing” will often result in termination by an employer bent on doing the “wrong thing,” I believe that the incentive needed is recognition of a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, in the appropriate case. The majority also bases its holding upon the reasoning that allowing in-house counsel a cause of action for retaliatory discharge will have a chilling effect on the attorney-client relationship and the free flow of information necessary to that relationship. This reasoning completely ignores what is very often one of the basic purposes of the attorney-client relationship, especially in the corporate client — in-house counsel setting. More importantly, it gives preeminence to the public policy favoring an unfettered right to discharge an attorney, although “[tjhere is no public policy more important or more fundamental than the one favoring the effective protection of the lives and property of citizens.” Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 124, 132 (citing, inter alia, Ill. Const. 1970, Preamble). One of the basic purposes of the attorney-client relationship, especially in the corporate client — in-house counsel setting, is for the attorney to advise the client as to, exactly, what conduct the law requires so that the client can then comply with that advice. Given that purpose, allowing in-house counsel a cause of action for retaliatory discharge would chill the attorney-client relationship and discourage a corporate client from communicating freely with the attorney only where, as here, the employer decides to go forward with particular conduct, regardless of advice that it is contrary to law. I believe that, just as in-house counsel might reasonably so assume, this court is entitled to assume that corporate clients will rarely so decide. As such, to allow a corporate employer to discharge its in-house counsel under such circumstances, without fear of any sanction, is truly to give the assistance and protection of the courts to scoundrels. Moreover, to recognize and sanction the corporate employer’s freedom (as opposed to its “right”) to discharge its in-house counsel under such circumstances, by denying the in-house counsel a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, is to exalt the at-will attorney-client contractual relationship above all other considerations, including the most important and fundamental public policy of protecting the lives and property of citizens. Such a result manifestly ignores one of the fundamental rules of contract law, viz., that individuals are presumed to have contracted with knowledge of the existing law and such laws enter into and form part of their contract as fully as if they were expressly referred to and incorporated into its terms. (Schlosser v. Jursich (1980), 87 Ill. App. 3d 824.) Admittedly, this is not, strictly speaking, a contract construction case. However, where, as here, the court’s holding in essence involves the construction of a contract and the impact of competing public policies thereon, the foregoing rule should not be ignored. In holding as it does, the majority also reasons that an attorney’s obligation to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct should not be the basis for a claim of retaliatory discharge. Preliminarily, I would note that were an employee’s desire to obey and follow the law an insufficient basis for a retaliatory discharge claim, Palmateer would have been decided differently. In this regard, I do not believe any useful purpose is served by distinguishing attorneys from ordinary citizens. It is incontrovertible that the law binds all men, kings and paupers alike. (See City of Chicago v. Weiss (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 113, 122, quoting Cox v. Louisiana (1965), 379 U.S. 559, 574, 13 L. Ed. 2d 487, 498, 85 S. Ct. 476, 486 (“ ‘[tjhere is *** a plain duty and responsibility on the part of all citizens to obey all valid laws and regulations’ ”).) An attorney should not be punished simply because he has ethical obligations imposed' upon him over and above the general obligation to obey the law which all men have. Nor should a corporate employer be protected simply because the employee it has discharged for “blowing the whistle” happens to be an attorney. I find the majority’s reasoning that an attorney's ethical obligations should not be the basis of a retaliatory discharge claim faulty for another reason. In so concluding, the majority ignores the employer’s decision to persist in the questionable conduct which its in-house counsel advised was illegal. It is that conduct, not the attorney’s ethical obligations, which is the predicate of the retaliatory discharge claim. That conduct is the true predicate of the claim because it is what required the attorney to act in compliance with his ethical obligations and thereby resulted in his discharge by the employer. As such, granting the attorney a claim for retaliatory discharge simply allows recovery against the party bent on breaking the law, rather than rewarding an attorney for complying with his ethical obligations. Additionally, I cannot share the majority’s solicitude for employers who discharge in-house counsel, who comply with their ethical obligations, by agreeing that they should not bear the economic burden which that compliance imposes upon the attorney. Unlike the majority, I do not believe that it is the attorney’s compliance with his ethical obligations which imposes economic burdens upon him. Rather, those burdens are imposed upon him by the employer’s persistence in conduct the attorney has advised is illegal and by the employer’s wrongful termination of the attorney once he advises the employer that he must comply with those obligations. Similarly, I do not believe that this case implicates any knowledge on an attorney’s part that, in order to protect the integrity of the legal profession, he will have to forgo prospective economic gain. Plaintiff here did not merely forgo the prospect of economic gain in order to comply with his ethical obligations. Rather, he was wrongfully deprived of continued employment and its attendant benefits, economic and otherwise, simply because he sought to competently represent his client within the bounds of the law. 134 Ill. 2d Preamble 472, Rules of Professional Conduct. In this same regard, it should be borne in mind that this case involves an attorney discharged from his employment, not one who has voluntarily resigned due to his ethical obligations. I believe the majority’s reasoning, in general, and with respect to the question of who should bear the economic burdens of the attorney’s loss of job, specifically, would be valid grounds for denying a cause of action to an attorney who voluntarily resigns, rather than is discharged. By focusing upon the immediate economic consequences of the discharge, the majority overlooks the very real possibility that in-house counsel who is discharged, rather than allowed to resign in accordance with his ethical obligations once the employer’s persistence in illegal conduct is evident to him, will be stigmatized within the legal profession. That stigma and its apparent consequences, economic and otherwise, in addition to the immediate economic consequences of a discharge, also militate strongly in favor of allowing the attorney a claim for retaliatory discharge. Finally, with respect to the foreign case law cited and ' discussed by the majority, suffice it to say that I do not find it as clearly one-sided as does the majority. Of particular relevance is Parker v. M & T Chemicals, Inc. (1989), 236 N.J. Super. 451, 566 A.2d 215. The majority distinguishes Parker as involving the New Jersey “whistleblower” statute, rather than a common law action for retaliatory discharge, like this case and Herbster v. North American Co. for Life & Health Insurance (1986), 150 Ill. App. 3d 21. In so doing, the majority ignores that the New Jersey Superior Court viewed the statute as a recognition by the New Jersey legislature of a preexisting common law tort cause of action for retaliatory discharge. (Parker, 236 N.J. Super, at 456, 566 A.2d at 218.) It also ignores that the Parker court specifically distinguished Herbster as not involving the constitutionality of a “whistle-blower” statute, rather than as merely involving a common law retaliatory discharge claim. 236 N.J. Super, at 459, 566 A.2d at 220. Inasmuch as the “whistleblower” statute being construed in Parker recognized a preexisting common law tort cause of action for retaliatory discharge, the fact that Herbster and this case involve such actions is an insufficient ground upon which to distinguish Parker. As such, the reasoning of the Parker court in allowing an attorney a claim for retaliatory discharge, albeit on a statutory basis, should not be so blithely dismissed by the majority. . Ultimately, the court’s decision in the instant case does nothing to encourage respect for the law by corporate employers nor to encourage respect by attorneys for their ethical obligations. (Cf. Parker, 236 N.J. Super, at 460, 463, 566 A.2d at 220, 222 (the court recognized that its holding should discourage employers from inducing employee-attorneys to participate in or condone illegal schemes, encourage an attorney’s resolve to resist such inducements because they would henceforth enjoy some specific statutory protections, and reinforce integrity and ethical professional practice).) Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.