In today’s legal world, the traditional view of what it means to be a “partner” seems to be ever-changing. As more law firms move from two-tier to multi-tier partnerships, the question of what it truly means to be a non-equity, income, or salaried partner is becoming an increasingly important issue. Specifically, during any partner departure or lateral transition, the exact nature of the partner’s status has a variety of ethical, contractual, and legal implications for the lawyer, as well as for the law firm. This issue must be analyzed carefully as part of any law firm departure. More
into New Partnerships While Minimizing Risk and Reducing Potential Liabilities
November 30, 2016
Are you Really a Partner? Non-Equity or Income Partners May Have Unique Issues During a Departure or Lateral Move
September 6, 2016
Mitigating Risks During Departure, Part 2: Minimize Exposure to Potential Claims Following a Partner Departure
It is important to remember that there are no absolute safe harbors protecting you from potential liability even when you endeavor to do all the right things when departing your firm. This is true in large part because there are often grey areas within the rules, tensions between those rules and your obligations to your firm, and a disparity between what is in the best interest of the firm versus the client, and even potentially you. In addition, you cannot control the response, behavior and/or motivations of certain firm members that may not want to see you succeed or are angry that clients may leave with you. Yet, making informed decisions, strategically planning and consciously navigating these grey areas helps to mitigate many of these risks.
As stated in part one on this topic, there are two main categories of risk a departing partner faces when considering his/her transition to a new firm. First, the risk that your firm will find out about the potential departure (or departure considerations) prior to the time that you are ready to tell the firm or provide formal notice. Second, the risk that your conduct with respect to your departure plans or considerations will expose you to potential claims by your firm or your clients of unlawful or unethical conduct. Sometimes attorney conduct will potentially implicate both categories of risks. Part two on this topic of mitigating risks analyzes ways to minimize your exposure to potential claims or allegations of misconduct following a partner departure. More
June 10, 2016
Taking the plunge to embark upon an attorney transition inherently involves some risk. Like with most things, some of the risk you can control, some may be outside of your control. However, taking steps to mitigate risk whenever possible will reduce the likelihood that you are subject to ethical scrutiny, disputes with the firm or protracted legal battles following your departure. It will also increase the likelihood that the firm will cooperate with your client transition plan and the eventual return of your capital.
There are two main categories of risk a departing partner faces when considering his/her transition to a new firm. First, the risk that your firm will find out about the potential departure (or departure considerations) prior to the time that you are ready to tell the firm or provide formal notice. Second, the risk that your conduct with respect to your departure plans or considerations will expose you to potential claims by your firm or your clients of unlawful or unethical conduct. Sometimes attorney conduct will potentially implicate both categories of risks. The first part of this article on mitigating risks will analyze ways to avoid having your firm or clients finds out about your departure before you are ready to announce it. More
March 2, 2016
In an important order that impacts the field of partner departures nationwide, a district court judge in the the Eastern District of Virginia held that a provision in a law firm’s operating agreement that provides that a withdrawing partner who “takes clients” forfeits up to fifty percent of his equity in the firm is void and unenforceable because it places an impermissible restriction on the partner’s right to practice law. (Moskowitz v. Jacobson Holman, PLLC, (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2016.)
The Court’s ruling was based on Rule 5.6 of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits lawyers from placing restrictions on the right to practice law, and is modeled on the ABA Model Rules. Versions of this rule have been adopted in every state, except California, although California has its own Rule of Professional Conduct which prohibits “agreements restricting a member’s practice” in certain circumstances. (See California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-500.) More
January 25, 2016
Earlier this month, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with an Orange County trial court that several emails sent by a departing partner to clients and former clients announcing his departure to a new firm did not qualify as protected speech under anti-SLAPP laws. Although the Court of Appeal’s opinion was unpublished, the Court provided a detailed analysis of what constitutes protected speech in the context of attorney departures. The opinion also underscores that the anti-SLAPP statute has very limited utility in attacking claims related to partner departures. More