Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was hired by D in 1990. P passed the bar in 1991 but finished his application for admission in 1997. In 1991, P and others at the firm became aware that Wolas, a D partner, was engaged in billing fraud. P brought the issue to the attention of some of the partners, but it turns out that they were profiting from Wolas' Ponzi schemes. Unknown to the associates, and apparently to those in charge of the firm, several members of the litigation department - where Wolas and the associates also worked - had invested profitably with Wolas for several years. Eventually, by 1993, the allegations made their way to the managing partners of D. P was supposed to meet with them, but the partners who had invested with Wolas forced P to resign. P sued D for breach of its employment contract and for Ds threatening to give P poor employment references in order to keep P quiet. D moved for dismissal in that P's contract was at will and P was not a barred attorney and thus the Wieder doctrine did not apply. P argued that an at-will lawyer who is not barred cannot be fired for reporting a lawyer's violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co