# Paul E. Montplaisir v. Richard J. Leighton

> Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 11, 1989 · 875 F.2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479045

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul E. MONTPLAISIR, Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Richard J. LEIGHTON, Et Al., Defendants, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- **Decided:** May 11, 1989
- **Citations:** 875 F.2d 1; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6428; 1989 WL 47993
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Aldrich
- **Judges:** Selya, Aldrich, Coffin
- **Cited by:** 76 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479045

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that employees’ state law malpractice claims against union lawyers constituted “unfair labor practice charges” such that claim must be brought before FLRA
- noting “the inescapable conclusion that Congress intended to preempt state-law tort actions” and explaining that courts have treated the CSRA as “establishing the sole mechanism for resolving labor conflicts in the federal arena”
- holding legal malpractice claim preempted by CSRA and stating that “crea tive labelling cannot carry the day”
- holding former government employees’ private tort action against union lawyers to be preempted by “the comprehensive nature of the [CSRA’s] remedial scheme”

## Opinion text

BAILEY ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
The court’s legal analysis and reasoning seems impeccable, and I agree with it, but feel, in this particular case, that its final point should be first. The bare fact is that the union, and plaintiffs as assenting members, knowingly determined to embark on an illegal enterprise, and employed defendants to advise how, to put it bluntly, they could best get away with it. Now they wish to be paid because the operation failed. Cutting away the trappings and formalistic rationalizing, can a bank robber who is apprehended sue the driver of the getaway car? Naturally defendants do not defend by saying that their advice was, in itself, unlawful, but even if defendants fell short of being aiders and abettors, plaintiffs are in no position to seek judicial assistance. I am surprised that they should expect it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479045. Public record. Not legal advice.