## Facts

- Alan P. Jacobson, a licensed attorney, was hired in July 1994 as an associate at Knepper & Moga, P.C., a consumer debt-collection law firm.
- Jacobson concluded the firm was filing consumer debt collection suits in venues allegedly barred by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Illinois Collection Agency Act.
- Jacobson raised the venue concern to partner James Knepper and was told the practice would be corrected.
- In April 1995, Jacobson was assigned to review and sign all consumer debt-collection complaints and found the improper venue practice continued.
- After Jacobson again complained, the firm removed his responsibility for reviewing and signing the complaints.
- Jacobson later discovered the practice still had not stopped, complained a third time, and was terminated about two weeks later.
- Jacobson alleged he was fired in retaliation for insisting the firm cease unlawful venue practices.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney employed by a law firm may maintain a common-law retaliatory discharge action against the firm for termination allegedly tied to reporting or opposing the firm’s unlawful practices.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and directed dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held an attorney may not maintain a retaliatory discharge action against a law-firm employer under these circumstances.
- The court treated the claim as controlled by prior Illinois decisions refusing to extend retaliatory discharge to attorney-employees acting within professional responsibilities.
- The case was remanded with directions to dismiss under the Illinois pleading statute governing legal insufficiency of a complaint.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois retaliatory discharge is a narrow exception to employment at will, available only when discharge contravenes a clearly mandated public policy.
- Attorney-employees are not permitted to use the retaliatory discharge tort for terminations arising from conduct tied to professional responsibilities.
- Attorneys’ independent ethical duties and the availability of professional discipline and other regulatory mechanisms are considered sufficient means to protect the public interest in lawful conduct.
- Allowing retaliatory discharge suits by attorneys against their employers risks conflicts with confidentiality and can impair attorney-client and law-firm relationships; these concerns weigh against recognizing the tort remedy in this setting.
- The limitation applies regardless of whether the attorney works as in-house counsel or as an associate in a law firm; the decisive factor is the plaintiff’s status as a licensed attorney acting in a professional capacity.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court barred an associate attorney’s retaliatory discharge claim against his law-firm employer, concluding that professional obligations and existing disciplinary and regulatory protections, coupled with confidentiality and relationship concerns, foreclose this tort remedy for attorney-employees acting within their professional role.


Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., 185 Ill. 2d 372, 706 N.E.2d 491 (Ill. 1998)