Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Ambiguity in Law Firm Partnership Agreements

By Debra L. Raskin and Max Shoengold

You would expect that lawyers, many of whom draft and revise contracts on a daily basis, would be especially careful to draft their own law firm partnership agreements so as to make their intentions clear and remove areas of potential ambiguity. Yet this does not always happen. In several recent cases, partners have brought suit against their firms or former firms, and argue that provisions of their partnership agreements should be interpreted one way, while the firms have chosen to implement the provisions in other ways. In these cases, courts must decide if the clauses at issue have at least two reasonable interpretations and are therefore sufficiently ambiguous that the matters should be decided by a fact-finder, or if the provisions are clear enough that they are unambiguous and the claims do not survive summary judgment.

A traditional way courts resolve ambiguity in contract disputes is by applying the doctrine of contra proferentem, which means that if the intent of the parties is impossible to discern, any ambiguities must be construed against the drafter as a matter of law. However, in cases 'where the relevant extrinsic evidence offered raises a question of credibility or presents a choice among reasonable inferences the construction of the ambiguous terms of the contract is a question of fact which precludes the application of the contra proferentem rule.' Morgan Stanley Group, Inc. v. New England Ins. Co., 36 F. Supp. 2d 605, 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff'd in part & vacated in part on other grounds, 225 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2000).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases Image

The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.