Washington Law Review


Raymis H.C. Kim


Most courts hold that in-house counsel have no cause of action under public policy or retaliatory discharge exceptions to the at-will employment rule. This is true even when they are discharged in contravention of a clearly mandated public policy. These courts have rationalized that such recognition would be contrary to the at-will nature of attorney-client employment and would have an adverse effect on the attorney-client relationship. This Comment proposes that courts should extend the public policy exception and retaliatory discharge doctrine to in-house counsel to protect the public from illegal corporate acts and provide relief to in-house counsel.

First Page