Excerpt from case Re: Whistleblower p.31 Cihon - Plante v. Hinckley

A Massachusetts Appellate Court allowed most of the lawyer's wrongful discharge claim to go forward.  What is the appropriate balance between the attorney-client privilege and federal law against child pornography?  Did the Court make the correct decision? Please take a close look at the entire opinion.  Search for Plante v. Hinckley (2011)


2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 66,*;28 Mass. L. Rep. 263
Kevin M. Plante v. Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP et al.
Opinion No.: 115034, Docket Number: 06-CV-4528-F
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
28 Mass. L. Rep. 263; 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 66
April 7, 2011, Decided

OPINION BY:   Dennis J. Curran
OPINION  

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Kevin M. Plante sued his former employer, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP (Hinckley Allen), for wrongful termination. Hinckley Allen counterclaimed. The matter is currently before the court on three motions: (1) Hinckley Allen's motion for summary judgment on the separation agreement and release (paper no. 65); (2) Hinckley Allen's motion to strike evidence relied upon in Plante's opposition to its motion for summary judgment (paper no. 67); and Plante's motion to dismiss the counterclaim (paper no. 59). For the reasons explained below, both of Hinckley Allen's motions are ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Plante's motion is DENIED.

source:  http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdihja&searchTerm=fcXW.TUHb.GaeH.QbGW&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW