Confidentiality for non-attorneys in law office

[conflict101]

please pardon my ommission of my State, can someone just provide a general response. I fear for posting but have noone I can trust

I work in a very politically connected law firm (which is hostile and will be another posting eventually) as a non-attorney. We represent a public entity.

Facts: Agency has both classified and unclassifed employees

Employee in question is over 55
She is an unclassified employee and is at will no civil service protection.
She is a high paid employee cause she is older and has been with agency for at least 30 years. She was asked to retire. She refused.

Attorney tells other attorney that agency wants her to retire so they can bring in someone cheaper (exact words and i believe it cause these people are scoundrels) Attorney tells associate to research Age discrimination law liability and exposure should they terminate this at will employee. They are concerned about proceeding only to lose and have to pay back wages, rehire and etc....

Looks like this lady is about to be railroaded and I do not know how i can sleep at nite knowing this. This just seems plain wrong. Surely they did not do anything yet and maybe they will decide against this but I imagine they will find a way to make her life unbearable that she just gives up and quits.

I once had passion for law and the legal system but I see it now as a sham along with our goverment who is supposed to protect the people. What would happen to me If I found out who she was and told her that they are trying to replace her with someone they can pay less cause you been here too long etc... I thought that cause I worked in a law firm I am also bound to protect client confidentiality. Are they any exceptions. Would this be one of them. I am torn cause one day I will be over 55 and be this person. I cannot see why managers and people of authority think it is not ok for non-professional people who work in the public sector or even the private sector to stay with a job for 30+ years and finally get to a point to be making a decent living then fires them solely cause they earn too much. Hey put a cap on salaries then for real. Yet noone does anything about the outrageous salaries some policiticans and thier appointed cronies make. Should I just keep quiet and hope they have a change of heart? WWJD?

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, this site is for US Law Only (generally speaking)

 

[startedone]

You work at a law firm and have not been told that illegal activity (future plans) is not confidential?

Anyway, you could complain but to who? No action has yet to been taken. The EEOC does not work to prevent EEOC violations.

And whistle blower protection? Maybe none. You would write a statement down and have it notarized for possible future use. Keep a diary of activities if you wish -- not that this would be discoverable if you wanted to let it known so only write what you want to be seen.

Looks like the law firm is looking into the issue ... maybe they have good motives for doing so.

 

[Proserpina]

WWJD?

Likely tell you to mind your business.

 

[Hot Topic]

Hold on, Crusader Rabbit. It appears you have a personal axe to grind against the company and are using the individual you write about to do it.

Your post is way too melodramatic. This isn't 60 Minutes. No huge investigation is likely to be launched.

Keep your eyes open for another job.

 

[ecmst12]

Nothing illegal is going on here. It is perfectly legal to fire someone because they are too expensive. It's not because of her age or her gender, it's a purely financial decision.

She will qualify for unemployment, she may still qualify for retirement benefits, and she will most likely be offered a severence package. Don't cry for her too hard.

 

[tranquility]

Nothing illegal is going on here. It is perfectly legal to fire someone because they are too expensive. It's not because of her age or her gender, it's a purely financial decision.

There are a a number of cases out there where a firing based on salary has been found to be discriminatory if the actual reason is based on age. Disparate impact theory addresses otherwise neutral adverse employment acts if they disproportionately affect those over 40.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I work in a very politically connected law firm (which is hostile and will be another posting eventually) as a non-attorney. We represent a public entity.

Facts: Agency has both classified and unclassifed employees

Employee in question is over 55
She is an unclassified employee and is at will no civil service protection.
She is a high paid employee cause she is older and has been with agency for at least 30 years. She was asked to retire. She refused.

Attorney tells other attorney that agency wants her to retire so they can bring in someone cheaper (exact words and i believe it cause these people are scoundrels) Attorney tells associate to research Age discrimination law liability and exposure should they terminate this at will employee. They are concerned about proceeding only to lose and have to pay back wages, rehire and etc....

Is the agency that employs this person the client of the law firm or the law firm itself? Your post is somewhat confusing as you refer to a law firm, a public entity and an agency.

Assuming the public entity is the agency as well as the employer of the over 55 person, you have a duty of confidentiality to the client (public entity, agency, employer). This is covered under rules 1.6 and 5.3 of the model rules of professional conduct. (confidentiality of information and Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants). Since you are not an attorney, you are not subject to discipline by the bar association, but you are subject to termination.

This is assuming that your state has adopted the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

 

[ecmst12]

It's DEFINITELY not illegal for the employer to ask their lawyer to RESEARCH the law regarding whether laying her off could be considered age discrimination, nor is it illegal for the employer to make a decision based on the results of the research.

 

[tranquility]

It's also not illegal to ask your attorney to research if denying a bed ridden spouse water is murder. I suppose following the advice of the attorney isn't illegal--if he's right.

 

[conflict101]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. I know this is entertainment for alot of you so here are my responses to your answers.

Zigner - I said pardon my omission of my state. I am in the US.

Startedone- They may have told us the "rules" in the beginning of employment but come on who remembers all of them after a few years with no activity.

Prosperina: I was being sarcastic, I don't believe in Jesus.

Hot top: If employers were smart and treated their employees as "business investments" if they can't treat them like humans, then they wouldnt have as much litigation as they do now. Loyalty is like respect. Whether i have an axe to grind or not is irrelevant. I have employees who worked under me years ago who still thank me to this day for having their back and for helping them obtain promotions they never had the confidence to get on their own. I gained their loyalty by showing them appreciation. Sometimes you have to give a little to get alot. All I wanted to know was what my obligation is/was.

Ecmst12: I will take your advice and save my tears for the law students who just graduated law school and can't find jobs

Tranquility: You left me with nothing smart to say other than thank you.

Steve: OMG someone who answered my question! Thank you very much for your intelligent response. Your entire assumption was correct about the facts. So basically my only liability is ruining my non-professional legal career and be fired. I've been through worse but want to keep my job at least until I pay my car off which is another 2 years so I'm thinking I can hold off on that axe for a while.

I wonder if I did reveal this, would it will disqualify me from unemployment? If so I suppose I can always pursue my dream of pan handling.