Wieder v Skala, 80 NY2d 628 (1992) recognized a limited exception to the employment-at-will doctrine where an attorney was dismissed by his law firm because he insisted that the partners report professional misconduct by a fellow associate "in accordance with the ethical standards of the profession" (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-103 [a]; 22 NYCRR 1200.4 [a]). The Wieder exception should be extended to physicians who have an ethical duty to protect patient confidentiality and thus not reveal confidential communications without the consent of the patient (see, Education Law 6530 [23]; 8 NYCRR 29.1 [b] [8]). The Court of Appeals addressed a claim by an associate at a large law firm that he had been discharged for insisting that the law firm report unethical conduct of another associate at the same firm. The unethical conduct included numerous misrepresentations and acts of malpractice against clients of the firm and acts of forgery of checks drawn on the firm's account. The Court held that Weider stated a valid claim for breach of contract based upon an implied-in-law obliga-tion in his relationship with the law firm. The Court reasoned that intrinsic to the relationship between Weider and the law firm was an unstated but essential compact that in conducting the firm's legal practice, both Weider and the firm would do so in com-pliance with the prevailing rules of conduct and ethical standards of the profession. Insisting that Weider, as an associate in their employ, act unethically and in violation of Code of Profes-sional Responsibility DR 1-103(A), one of the primary professional rules, amounted to nothing less than a frustration of the only legitimate purpose of the employment relationship. As the Court of Appeals stated in Wieder: In any hiring of an attorney as an associate to practice law with a firm there is implied an understanding so funda-mental to the relationship and essential to its purpose as to require no expression: that both the associate and the firm in conducting the practice will do so in accordance with the ethical standards of the profession. Erecting or countenancing disincentives to compliance with the applicable rules of professional conduct, plaintiff contends, would subvert the central professional purpose of his relationship with the firm--the lawful and ethical practice of law. (80 NY2d at 636).