Earlier this year, the Virginia State Bar enacted a new ethical rule governing how attorneys and law firms should notify clients in the event of an attorney departure or firm dissolution. The new rule, Rule 5.8 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, is an effort by that state to regulate what it viewed as a difficulty in getting attorneys and law firms to cooperate related to the handling of law firm departures and dissolutions, and in how attorneys notify clients of these changes. More
into New Partnerships While Minimizing Risk and Reducing Potential Liabilities
October 15, 2015
Are Recent Ethical Rules that Establish Attorney Notification Protocols For Departing Attorneys Really in the Best Interest of the Clients?
August 17, 2015
Perhaps the single biggest factor partners underestimate when transitioning their practice to a new firm, or starting a new practice, is the emotional impact of the move. Even those who consider themselves stoic and rational by nature are often caught off-guard by how highly emotional this transition can be, for both the departing partner and for those whom he or she is leaving behind. In fact, there are a whole host of emotions that may accompany any departure including excitement, relief, sadness, anger, elation, fear, betrayal and sometimes a bizarre combination of them all. However, emotions can be kryptonite to judgment. And clouded judgment often results in poor decision-making. More
July 17, 2015
Departing Partners And Potential Conflicts With Current And Former Clients: The Featured Role Of The “Substantially Related” Test In Two Recent Disqualification Decisions
In the space of fifteen months, the Northern District of Texas and the District Court of Delaware have each issued significant attorney disqualification orders. In both cases, the “substantially related” test regarding past and present representations had a featured role in the courts’ decisions to disqualify the same California law firm from significant patent cases. For departed partners and their new firms, these decisions serve as important reminders about the key factors to analyze before becoming adverse to former clients. More
May 12, 2015
Nelson Levine v. Lewis Brisbois Just Settled: Firm Laptops and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – Lessons from A Recently Resolved Attorney Departure Case
As many attorneys who follow partner departures and lateral moves know, in 2014 a group of attorneys at Nelson Levine De Luca & Hamilton, LLC (“Nelson Levine”) in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, left the firm to join Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (“Lewis Brisbois”), a California limited liability partnership. This departure resulted in litigation that serves as a primer on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, underscoring the importance of adding firm-issued laptops and the handling of other technology (often accessing confidential information) that attorneys regularly use, to the growing list of topics that firms and departing attorneys should address as part of the firm’s policies and procedures and in advance of any separation.
April 12, 2015
Partner Departures and Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group: Does California’s Business and Professions Code § 16600 Void Any Partnership Provision that Restricts a Departing Partner’s Right to Compete?
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision, filed April 8, 2015, in Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (9th Circuit) Case No. 12-16514, has potentially far-reaching implications for what is deemed to be an unlawful professional restraint in violation of California’s Business and Professions Code § 16600. In closely examining the statute, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the reach of § 16600 does extend far beyond non-compete provisions to every contract restraining someone from “engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business.” With respect to partner departures, some restrictions contained in partnership agreements in anticipation of dissolution or partner departure are excluded from this rule by Section 16602. However, even non-compete agreements between partners, and other contractual provisions that have a similar effect, may be unenforceable if they impose any restrictions on a partner’s right to practice law not contemplated by Section 16602. More