Balla v. Gambro, Inc.

Supreme Court of Illinois
145 Ill. 2d 492, 584 N.E.2d 104, 164 Ill. Dec. 892 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In-house counsel do not have a claim for the tort of retaliatory discharge against their employer/client because the public policy at stake is adequately protected by the attorney's mandatory ethical obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct, and allowing such claims would harm the attorney-client relationship.

Facts:

Roger Balla, a licensed attorney, was employed by Gambro, Inc., as its director of administration, general counsel, and manager of regulatory affairs.
Gambro was a distributor of kidney dialysis equipment manufactured by an affiliate, Gambro Germany.
In July 1985, Gambro Germany informed Gambro that it was shipping dialyzers which did not comply with FDA regulations and posed a potential medical risk to patients.
Balla advised Gambro's president to reject the non-conforming shipment.
Initially, the president agreed to reject the shipment, but a week later, he reversed this decision, informing Gambro Germany that Gambro would accept the dialyzers and sell them to a customer who buys based on price.
Balla confronted the president and stated that he would do whatever was necessary to stop the sale of the dialyzers.
On September 4, 1985, Gambro's president discharged Balla from his employment.
The day after his discharge, Balla reported the shipment to the FDA, which subsequently seized the dialyzers.

Procedural Posture:

Roger Balla filed a retaliatory discharge action against Gambro, Inc. and its affiliates in the circuit court of Cook County, a state trial court.
The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that Balla, as an attorney, was precluded from bringing a retaliatory discharge claim against his employer/client.
Balla, as appellant, appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that an attorney is not barred as a matter of law from bringing such an action.
The Gambro defendants, as appellants, were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an in-house counsel have a cause of action for the tort of retaliatory discharge against their employer/client for being terminated after threatening to report the employer's plan to sell products that endanger public health and safety?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Clark

No. In-house counsel generally may not bring a cause of action for retaliatory discharge against an employer/client. The court reasoned that the public policy goal of protecting public health and safety is already adequately safeguarded by an attorney's ethical duties. Specifically, the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct mandated that Balla report Gambro's intentions to prevent acts that could result in death or serious bodily injury. Unlike a non-attorney employee, Balla had no choice but to report the misconduct, so the incentive of a tort remedy is unnecessary. Furthermore, allowing such a lawsuit would have a chilling effect on the attorney-client relationship, as employers might become hesitant to communicate openly and honestly with their in-house counsel for fear that confidential information could be used against them in a retaliatory discharge suit. The court prioritized the sanctity and trust inherent in the attorney-client relationship, including the client's right to discharge an attorney at any time, over extending this tort remedy to in-house counsel.

Dissenting - Justice Freeman

Yes. The tort of retaliatory discharge should be extended to in-house counsel. The dissent argued that relying solely on ethical obligations to protect public policy ignores the reality of human nature and the severe economic pressure an attorney faces when complying with ethical rules may cost them their livelihood. A cause of action for retaliatory discharge provides a necessary incentive for attorneys to 'do the right thing.' The dissent contended that the majority's 'chilling effect' argument is flawed, as it would only discourage communications about illegal conduct, which is not a type of communication public policy should protect. It asserted that the public policy of protecting citizens' lives is more fundamental than the policy favoring a client's unfettered right to discharge their attorney, and denying a remedy gives 'the assistance and protection of the courts to scoundrels.'

Analysis:

This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Illinois denying in-house counsel the ability to sue for retaliatory discharge, creating a significant distinction between attorneys and other corporate employees. The ruling prioritizes the unique nature of the attorney-client relationship and the attorney's professional obligations over providing a tort remedy available to the general workforce. This precedent places in-house counsel in a position where they must uphold their ethical duties to report client wrongdoing that threatens public safety, even if it means termination of their employment, without any legal recourse for their financial losses. The case highlights the inherent conflict between an attorney's role as a corporate employee and their professional duties as an officer of the court.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Balla v. Gambro, Inc. (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature