- 15 -
stated:
The methods by which * * * [professionals] work are
prescribed by the techniques and standards of their
professions. No layman should dictate to a lawyer how
to try a case or to a doctor how to diagnose a disease.
Therefore, the control of an employer over the manner
in which professional employees shall conduct the
duties of their positions must necessarily be more
tenuous and general than the control over
nonprofessional employees. Yet, despite this absence
of direct control over the manner in which * * *
[professionals] shall conduct their professional
activities, it cannot be doubted that many * * *
[professionals] are employees.
Petitioners argue RHB did not have the right to control the
means and manner by which petitioner exercised his fiduciary
responsibilities. Petitioners assert that petitioner was
required by law to exercise his own independent judgment when
exercising his fiduciary duties and was subject only to the
requirements of law and the terms of the individual trust
documents.
It is inherent in the nature of many professions, including
petitioner’s, that professional employees engaged in such
professions are subject to various requirements of law,
requirements of independent regulatory bodies, and other
fiduciary responsibilities which are beyond the control of their
employer. Because a lower standard applies to professionals, the
fact petitioner was required by law to exercise independent
judgment does not preclude RHB from exercising the requisite
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011