"The Impact of" General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court "on the Evolving Tort of Retaliatory Discharge for In-House Attorneys"
In the General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court case, the California Supreme Court decided to permit in-house counsel to plead the retaliatory discharge cause of action because the availability of the tort action would help corporate counsel promote the fundamental public policies reflected in the e...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Washington and Lee law review 1995-01, Vol.52 (3), p.991 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 991 |
| container_title | Washington and Lee law review |
| container_volume | 52 |
| creator | Coblentz, Chanda R |
| description | In the General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court case, the California Supreme Court decided to permit in-house counsel to plead the retaliatory discharge cause of action because the availability of the tort action would help corporate counsel promote the fundamental public policies reflected in the ethical rules. Protecting society is an important goal that attorneys must strive to achieve. However, lawyers also must remain conscious of the ethical duty that they owe to their clients. The General Dynamics test affords in-house attorneys discharged for upholding mandatory ethical obligations a reasonable remedy that protects both society and the confidences of the client. Courts should not extend further the retaliatory discharge remedy and jeopardize client confidences. Rather, the state legislatures must consider revising the governing ethical rules to eliminate ambiguity and to provide specific direction to corporate counsel dealing with potential ethical conflicts. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_236301040</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>9071731</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p550-abfee2858621a7bb46fac8d190918e7f7219b1124e37d6f247428d183b0285323</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1j19LwzAUxYMoOKffIdTnjvxrmj6ObbrBQNC-j7S72Tq6pCbpYE9-dSP66tOBe87vHO4NmtBKsFzKQt2iCSGC50RIfo8eQjgRQgrGywn6yuoj4M150G3EzmT4FSx43ePl1epz1wa8cH6Y4csMf4wD-M75dBl9xJmzOCZ2dXH9pbMHXDv_U4HfIeq-09H5K152oT1qfwBsErix-dqNAfA8JtfCNWSP6M7oPsDTn05R_bKqF-t8-_a6Wcy3-VAUJNeNAWCqUJJRXTaNkEa3ak8rUlEFpSkZrRpKmQBe7qVhohQs2Yo3JFGc8SnKfmsH7z5HCHF3Sk_YtLhjXHJCiSAp9PxfiHKilFBclvwbpuxlfA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>236301040</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>"The Impact of" General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court "on the Evolving Tort of Retaliatory Discharge for In-House Attorneys"</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Coblentz, Chanda R</creator><creatorcontrib>Coblentz, Chanda R</creatorcontrib><description>In the General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court case, the California Supreme Court decided to permit in-house counsel to plead the retaliatory discharge cause of action because the availability of the tort action would help corporate counsel promote the fundamental public policies reflected in the ethical rules. Protecting society is an important goal that attorneys must strive to achieve. However, lawyers also must remain conscious of the ethical duty that they owe to their clients. The General Dynamics test affords in-house attorneys discharged for upholding mandatory ethical obligations a reasonable remedy that protects both society and the confidences of the client. Courts should not extend further the retaliatory discharge remedy and jeopardize client confidences. Rather, the state legislatures must consider revising the governing ethical rules to eliminate ambiguity and to provide specific direction to corporate counsel dealing with potential ethical conflicts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-0463</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-6658</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lexington,Va: School of Law, Washington and Lee University</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Attorneys ; Employees ; Employers ; Firings ; Labor law ; Professional ethics ; State court decisions ; Torts</subject><ispartof>Washington and Lee law review, 1995-01, Vol.52 (3), p.991</ispartof><rights>Copyright Washington & Lee University, School of Law 1995</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27869</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Coblentz, Chanda R</creatorcontrib><title>"The Impact of" General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court "on the Evolving Tort of Retaliatory Discharge for In-House Attorneys"</title><title>Washington and Lee law review</title><description>In the General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court case, the California Supreme Court decided to permit in-house counsel to plead the retaliatory discharge cause of action because the availability of the tort action would help corporate counsel promote the fundamental public policies reflected in the ethical rules. Protecting society is an important goal that attorneys must strive to achieve. However, lawyers also must remain conscious of the ethical duty that they owe to their clients. The General Dynamics test affords in-house attorneys discharged for upholding mandatory ethical obligations a reasonable remedy that protects both society and the confidences of the client. Courts should not extend further the retaliatory discharge remedy and jeopardize client confidences. Rather, the state legislatures must consider revising the governing ethical rules to eliminate ambiguity and to provide specific direction to corporate counsel dealing with potential ethical conflicts.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Attorneys</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Employers</subject><subject>Firings</subject><subject>Labor law</subject><subject>Professional ethics</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Torts</subject><issn>0043-0463</issn><issn>1942-6658</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1j19LwzAUxYMoOKffIdTnjvxrmj6ObbrBQNC-j7S72Tq6pCbpYE9-dSP66tOBe87vHO4NmtBKsFzKQt2iCSGC50RIfo8eQjgRQgrGywn6yuoj4M150G3EzmT4FSx43ePl1epz1wa8cH6Y4csMf4wD-M75dBl9xJmzOCZ2dXH9pbMHXDv_U4HfIeq-09H5K152oT1qfwBsErix-dqNAfA8JtfCNWSP6M7oPsDTn05R_bKqF-t8-_a6Wcy3-VAUJNeNAWCqUJJRXTaNkEa3ak8rUlEFpSkZrRpKmQBe7qVhohQs2Yo3JFGc8SnKfmsH7z5HCHF3Sk_YtLhjXHJCiSAp9PxfiHKilFBclvwbpuxlfA</recordid><startdate>19950101</startdate><enddate>19950101</enddate><creator>Coblentz, Chanda R</creator><general>School of Law, Washington and Lee University</general><general>Washington & Lee University, School of Law</general><scope>JWXEY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8A9</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19950101</creationdate><title>"The Impact of" General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court "on the Evolving Tort of Retaliatory Discharge for In-House Attorneys"</title><author>Coblentz, Chanda R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p550-abfee2858621a7bb46fac8d190918e7f7219b1124e37d6f247428d183b0285323</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Attorneys</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Employers</topic><topic>Firings</topic><topic>Labor law</topic><topic>Professional ethics</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Torts</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Coblentz, Chanda R</creatorcontrib><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 39</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Washington and Lee law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Coblentz, Chanda R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>"The Impact of" General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court "on the Evolving Tort of Retaliatory Discharge for In-House Attorneys"</atitle><jtitle>Washington and Lee law review</jtitle><date>1995-01-01</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>991</spage><pages>991-</pages><issn>0043-0463</issn><eissn>1942-6658</eissn><abstract>In the General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court case, the California Supreme Court decided to permit in-house counsel to plead the retaliatory discharge cause of action because the availability of the tort action would help corporate counsel promote the fundamental public policies reflected in the ethical rules. Protecting society is an important goal that attorneys must strive to achieve. However, lawyers also must remain conscious of the ethical duty that they owe to their clients. The General Dynamics test affords in-house attorneys discharged for upholding mandatory ethical obligations a reasonable remedy that protects both society and the confidences of the client. Courts should not extend further the retaliatory discharge remedy and jeopardize client confidences. Rather, the state legislatures must consider revising the governing ethical rules to eliminate ambiguity and to provide specific direction to corporate counsel dealing with potential ethical conflicts.</abstract><cop>Lexington,Va</cop><pub>School of Law, Washington and Lee University</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0043-0463 |
| ispartof | Washington and Lee law review, 1995-01, Vol.52 (3), p.991 |
| issn | 0043-0463 1942-6658 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_236301040 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | Agreements Attorneys Employees Employers Firings Labor law Professional ethics State court decisions Torts |
| title | "The Impact of" General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court "on the Evolving Tort of Retaliatory Discharge for In-House Attorneys" |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T14%3A53%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%22The%20Impact%20of%22%20General%20Dynamics%20Corp.%20v.%20Superior%20Court%20%22on%20the%20Evolving%20Tort%20of%20Retaliatory%20Discharge%20for%20In-House%20Attorneys%22&rft.jtitle=Washington%20and%20Lee%20law%20review&rft.au=Coblentz,%20Chanda%20R&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=991&rft.pages=991-&rft.issn=0043-0463&rft.eissn=1942-6658&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E9071731%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=236301040&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |