Abstract
The unusual role lawyer speech plays, both as the embodiment of law and as the fulfillment of professional obligations, sets it apart from that of other government employees. This article critiques two highly controversial split decisions from the United States Supreme Court ascribing minimal First Amendment protection to government lawyer speech — Connick v. Meyer and Garcetti v. Ceballos — and proposes a framework to be applied to the workplace assessment speech of government lawyers when acting as a check on the power of the regulatory state, so long as the speech does not run counter to professional ethics obligations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
