Washington Law Review


Tim Adams


This Note traces the development of federal preemption in labor law, examining Peterson as an illustration of the tendency of courts to broadly interpret federal statutory labor policy. In particular, this Note questions whether preemption in a legal malpractice action is appropriate, since professional negligence is not expressly or impliedly addressed under federal statute, and is not an essential part of the national labor policy expressed in legislative history. This Note concludes that federal law should not have preempted the state cause of action in Peterson. Finally, this Note suggests that recognition of state legal malpractice actions would be an ideal signpost announcing the outer limits of federal preemption under Section 301.

First Page