Fired Associate Allowed to Sue Firm on Claim of Porn Ethics Dustup
Updated: A Massachusetts appeals court is allowing an associate to sue a Boston law firm based on a claim he was illegally fired for refusing to destroy child pornography inadvertently found on a client’s computer.
The law firm—Hinckley, Allen & Snyder—had maintained the suit by lawyer Kevin Plante should be tossed to avoid disclosure of confidential client information, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. But the appeals court rejected that argument in an opinion released this week.
The appeals court said a protective order could safeguard any client confidences, Plante’s lawyer, Kevin Powers, told the publication. The decision was sealed and issued with a pseudonymous caption, but Massachusetts Weekly obtained a copy and confirmed the identities of Plante and his law firm, according to Legal Blog Watch.
Plante claims law firm partners asked him to research the firm’s obligations after finding the child porn, and he advised them they were legally obligated to turn the material over to law enforcement.
“If a person came to you as a lawyer and said, ‘Here is the illegally possessed gun that I killed so and so with,’ you can’t just put it in your desk and call it privileged,” Plante told Lawyers Weekly. “It couldn’t be clearer under federal and state law that you cannot possess those kinds of images. By doing so, the client and the firm would be guilty of possessing child pornography.”
Plante claims the partners ignored his advice and told him to erase the images, but he didn’t comply, leading to his termination, according to the story.
Hinckley, Allen & Snyder offers a different account of the firing. In a statement provided to the ABA Journal, the law firm calls Plante “a disgruntled employee” and says he was fired for reasons related to his performance and conduct. “Throughout, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP acted legally, professionally, and ethically and dealt with all issues appropriately,” the statement says. “The Rules of Professional Conduct require that lawyers protect client information. We will do nothing to violate that trust.”
Updated at 11:45 a.m. CT on May 2 to include statement from Hinckley Allen.
