Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Departing Partners: Duties and Pitfalls
A modern day fixture of the law firm is the revolving door. See Graubard Mollen Bannett & Horowitz v. Moskovitz, 86 N.Y.2d 112, 114 (1995). As Chief Justice Rehnquist has observed: '[i]nstitutional loyalty appears to be in decline. Partners in law firms have become increasingly 'mobile,' feeling much freer than they formerly did and having much greater opportunity than they formerly did, to shift from one firm to another and take revenue-producing clients with them.' Justice William H. Rehnquist, 'The Legal Profession Today,' 62 Ind. L.J. 151, 152 (1986/1987). The increasing frequency with which partners leave law firms for new ones raises many issues concerning the permissibility of a withdrawing attorney's conduct regarding client/attorney solicitation, removal of client files or other documents and breach of anti-competition clauses in partnership agreements. In addition to adherence to the professional ethical rules, a partner is subject to a fiduciary duty to his firm and is thus constrained by such duty throughout the life of the partnership. See Gibbs v. Breed, Abbott & Morgan, 271 A.D.2d 180, 184-85 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000).
Law partners are bound to their firms by a fiduciary duty requiring 'the punctilio of honor the most sensitive.' Graubard, 86 N.Y.2d at 118 (quoting Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458, 464 (1928)). Law partners are similarly bound as fiduciaries to their clients. These dual duties can come into conflict in a myriad of ways when a partner simultaneously wishes to exercise his or her right of unrestricted job mobility and look out for the best interests of his client.
Notification and Solicitation of Clients
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.