Hearing, Pettersen v Monaghan Safar Ducham PLLC, 2020 192

Summary

This script depicts a court hearing involving William Patterson, who is representing himself, and attorney Eric Jones, representing the law firm Monahan, Safar and Duchamp. Patterson claims the firm breached a compensation agreement and wrongfully terminated him after he threatened legal action. Jones argues Patterson resigned, was paid fairly, and bases his entire case on one conversation lacking requisite specificity for legal claims. The justices question both sides about elements of contractual disputes versus matters of public policy interest, probing the strength of arguments.

Takeaways

• 😀 Patterson argues there was a breach of a compensation promise and wrongful termination
• 😕 Patterson claims a statement by Monahan affirmed his proposed compensation plan
• 🤔 The court questions if there was a definitive compensation promise made
• 🧐 Patterson states he was terminated, while Jones claims he resigned
• 😮 Patterson argues the Vermont Constitution supports a wrongful termination claim
• 🤨 Jones states Patterson's claims lack evidence of reliance or intent
• 😐 Jones argues Patterson's aspirations concerned future events that never occurred
• 😀 Patterson states statutes show a public policy against retaliation
• 🤔 The court questions if dissatisfaction with pay is enough for a claim
• 🤨 Jones argues the dispute is contractual and does not implicate public policy

Q & A

What is the central issue in the case being discussed?

The central issue is an alleged breach of a compensation promise made by the law firm to Patterson during salary negotiations in 2016.

What did attorney Monahan specifically say to Patterson regarding his compensation proposal?

According to Patterson, Monahan said 'Yes, that's reasonable' in response to Patterson's 5-year partnership track and $100,000 salary proposal.

Does Patterson claim there was a written contract regarding the alleged compensation promise?

No, Patterson acknowledges there was no written contract, only a verbal affirmation of his proposal by Monahan.

What is Patterson's key argument regarding his wrongful termination claim?

Patterson argues that his termination after raising the prospect of legal claims over the compensation dispute violates public policy protections for employees.

What is the defense's main counterargument regarding the wrongful termination claim?

The defense argues that Patterson resigned and was not actually terminated, so there is no wrongful termination.

What does the defense say is the only evidence supporting Patterson's claims?

The defense says the conversation between Patterson and Monahan is the sole factual basis for all of Patterson's claims.

How does the defense characterize Monahan's alleged statement to Patterson?

The defense argues it was merely an expression of opinion or aspiration, not an actual promise.

What does the defense say about Patterson's job search activities?

They argue that Patterson was continually looking for other jobs, showing he did not rely on or was not induced to stay by anything the firm said.

What argument does the defense make regarding the timeline of events?

They note Patterson quit after 2 years, before the alleged 5-year trajectory to partnership, so he cannot claim damages about what might have happened years in the future.

How does the defense counter Patterson's public policy arguments?

They say private contractual disputes do not implicate public policy interests absent some collateral public impact, which they argue is not present here.