571 S.W.3d 561
Mo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Rawlings & Associates, a law firm, required employees to sign a confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement; an attorney-specific version contained a “savings clause” excepting solicitation of legal work “to the extent necessary to comply with the rules of professional responsibility applicable to attorneys.”
- Carol Greissman, a licensed Kentucky attorney employed by the firm, refused to sign the agreement believing it violated SCR 3.130, Rule 5.6 (which bars agreements restricting a lawyer’s right to practice after employment). The firm then terminated her.
- Greissman sued for wrongful termination under Kentucky’s public-policy exception to employment-at-will, alleging her discharge was retaliatory for refusing to violate an obligatory Rule of Professional Conduct.
- The circuit court denied the firm’s motion to dismiss (holding court rules can supply public policy) but granted summary judgment for the firm, finding the savings clause cured any conflict and that Greissman lacked a reasonable, good-faith belief signing would violate Rule 5.6.
- The Court of Appeals held Rule 5.6 did not constitute public policy for wrongful-termination purposes and that the complaint should have been dismissed; the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court held (1) obligatory Rules of Professional Conduct can constitute public policy for wrongful-termination claims because attorney regulation is vested exclusively in the judiciary, but (2) affirmed summary judgment for Rawlings on different grounds: the agreement’s savings clause plainly exempted solicitation of legal work, so signing would not have violated Rule 5.6, and Greissman had no genuine fact issue showing a reasonable belief otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCR 3.130, Rule 5.6 can supply the public policy necessary to support a wrongful-termination claim | Greissman: an obligatory Rule of Professional Conduct is public policy and she was terminated for refusing to violate it | Rawlings: Rule 5.6 is a court rule, not a constitutional or statutory mandate, so it cannot underlie a wrongful-termination claim | Court: Obligatory attorney rules can constitute public policy because the Kentucky Constitution vests attorney regulation in the judiciary |
| Whether the non-solicitation agreement violated Rule 5.6 as a matter of law | Greissman: the agreement’s restrictions amounted to an unlawful post-employment practice restriction despite the savings clause | Rawlings: the savings clause expressly exempts solicitation of legal work, so the agreement does not restrict an attorney’s right to practice | Court: Agreement’s plain language (savings clause) removed any conflict with Rule 5.6; no rule violation as a matter of law |
| Whether Greissman’s reasonable, good-faith belief that signing would violate Rule 5.6 suffices to sustain wrongful-termination claim | Greissman: her good-faith belief alone is enough to proceed | Rawlings: no reasonable belief because savings clause made compliance safe and advisory Ethics Hotline was available | Court: No genuine issue of material fact that she had a reasonable, good-faith belief; summary judgment for Rawlings affirmed |
| Proper procedural disposition after conflicting rulings below | Greissman: complaint should survive dismissal and summary judgment | Rawlings: dismissal or summary judgment appropriate | Court: Reversed Court of Appeals on dismissal issue (rules can be public policy) but affirmed circuit court’s summary judgment on the savings-clause ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399 (Ky. 1985) (establishes Kentucky’s public-policy exception to at-will employment)
- Firestone Textile Co. Div. v. Meadows, 666 S.W.2d 730 (Ky. 1983) (discusses wrongful discharge where termination conflicts with public policy)
- Asbury Univ. v. Powell, 486 S.W.3d 246 (Ky. 2016) (explains at-will termination scope and unlawful reasons for discharge)
- Wymer v. JH Properties, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 195 (Ky. 2001) (addresses limits on at-will termination tied to statutory or constitutional violations)
- Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2010) (standard of review for de novo legal questions on dismissal/summary judgment)
- Martello v. Santana, 874 F.Supp.2d 658 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (recognizes that Supreme Court rules governing attorneys embody public policy given judicial rulemaking authority)