relationship. Adoption of plaintiffs proposal under these circumstances would require that we imply a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant attorneys that would be the antithesis of the attorney-client relationship between defendant attorneys and their own client, the corporation. It is uncontrovertible that defendant attorneys could not have ethically represented plaintiff, a potential adversary in the conflict. Thus, it seems incongruous to hold defendant attorneys jointly liable for the breach of a fiduciary duty that would be unethical for them to perform. Moreover, our reluctance to employ section 876(b) in a wholesale fashion as the expression of a common-law duty in Oregon has precedence. See e.g., Schram v. Albertson’s Inc., 146 Or App 415, 934 P2d 483 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Also, holding that defendant attorneys are
recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy holding employee has cause of action for retaliatory discharge in contravention of public policy where employee was fired for reporting fellow employees alleged criminal activities to local law enforcement holding that a claim for commonlaw wrongful discharge from employment does not lie against a fellow employee because the policy of the law is to hold employers accountable holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a commonlaw wrongful discharge claim