Reinstatement of a Wrongfully Discharged Lawyer?

 

Earlier this week, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued an interesting decision involving remedies for the discharge of in-house counsel in violation of the Equal Pay, Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Sands v. Menard, Inc., involved a claim by a lawyer terminated from her position as vice president and executive general counsel of the Wisconsin-based building supplies company. The lawyer had claimed that she was the victim of gender-based pay discrimination. The matter was submitted to arbitration, and Menard was determined to have violated the lawyer’s rights in underpaying her and retaliating for her complaint.

The arbitration panel awarded the lawyer compensatory and punitive damages and also ordered reinstatement, a remedy that neither party sought. In upholding the reinstatement order, the court provided the following analysis:

Continue ReadingReinstatement of a Wrongfully Discharged Lawyer?

Wisconsin, the Stimulus Package, and Green Jobs

Some legal commentators in recent months have questioned whether the Obama Stimulus Package will truly create green jobs for the American economy. See, for example, Morriss et. al., Green Job Myths.

Here is some indication how to use those dollars so that they will actually create those jobs.  The following is a press release from the Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS), a nonprofit, nonpartisan “think-and-do tank,” dedicated to improving economic performance and living standards in the state of Wisconsin and nationally:

A new report from the Center on Wisconsin Strategy encourages the state to embrace the green-collar potential of a clean energy economy. Greening Wisconsin’s Workforce: Training, Recovery and the Clean Energy Economy looks at how Wisconsin might best use its Recovery Act dollars and first-rate technical college system to ensure that the emerging green economy benefits Wisconsin’s working families. 

Continue ReadingWisconsin, the Stimulus Package, and Green Jobs

Bad Law Makes Tragic Cases: Is Rule 1.6 Unethical?

I am just finishing up Law Governing Lawyers with Prof. Schneider.  I did wonder before the class first met why the course was not called something like “Legal Ethics”; after all, even our text is entitled “Ethical Problems in the Practice of Law” by Lerman and Schrag.

It didn’t take long to discover that the law governing lawyers, while usually ethical, occasionally requires behaviors that cannot possibly be squared with any ethical system.

The one that stands out most is Rule 1.6 in the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility.  In Wisconsin, this Rule is codified as SCR 20:1.6 Confidentiality.

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c).

[paragraphs (b) and (c) omitted.]

The rationale behind the Rule is that effective representation depends on the client’s candid communication with his or her attorney, which depends on trusting the attorney to keep the client’s confidences.  Everyone has a right to fair treatment by the law ensured by effective representation.  I get that, and at first glance, there is no apparent ethical dilemma.  If clients tell their attorneys about ongoing or impending criminal acts, paragraphs (b) and (c) require or allow reporting.

But deeper reflection in class drew out a serious ethical dilemma from tragic cases in which lawyers are given information about past crimes, which does not fit the given exceptions and withholding of which is difficult to justify.  The most tragic cases are child killers whose victims have not been found.  When the killers tell their attorneys where the bodies are, can the attorneys be compelled tell the families or the police?  From several cases, the answer is ‘No’.

Continue ReadingBad Law Makes Tragic Cases: Is Rule 1.6 Unethical?
Newer Posts
Older Posts