United States Court of Appeals FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
|
|
- Peter Foster
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 No IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELLER EHRMAN, LLP, -v.- Plaintiff-Appellant, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIEF FOR THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE OF COUNSEL: DAVID G. KEYKO KEVIN M. FONG JAY D. DEALY WILLIAM C. HUBBARD Counsel of Record PRESIDENT AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 321 North Clark Street Chicago, Illinois (312) Attorneys for Amicus Curiae American Bar Association
2 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, amicus curiae American Bar Association ( ABA ) discloses that it is an Illinois nonprofit corporation, has no parent corporation, and does not issue shares of stock. ABA is a national voluntary organization whose members include attorneys, law students, and related professionals. i
3 STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the decision of the District Court, which is consistent with and supported by the principles governing the ethical obligations of lawyers, should be affirmed. ii
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW... ii SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 5 ARGUMENT... 8 I. APPLICATION OF THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS RULE TO A CLIENT S HOURLY RATE MATTERS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT A. Application Of The Unfinished Business Rule To A Client s Hourly Rate Matters Would Conflict With The Financial and Ethical Rules Regulating The Legal Fees That The Client Can Be Charged B. Application Of The Unfinished Business Rule To A Client s Hourly Rate Matters Conflicts With The Ethical Rules Regulating The Division Of Legal Fees II. APPLICATION OF THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS RULE TO A CLIENT S HOURLY RATE MATTERS WOULD ENCOURAGE ATTORNEYS TO LEAVE THEIR FIRMS AT THE FIRST SIGNS OF FINANCIAL TROUBLE AND TO COUNSEL THEIR CLIENTS TO DO THE SAME CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii
5 Table of Authorities Cases Anderson, McPharlin & Connors v. Yee 135 Cal. App. 4th 129 (2005) Champion v. Superior Court of San Francisco 201 Cal. App. 3d 777 (1988)... 10, 11, 19 City & County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc. 38 Cal. 4th 839 (2006)... 9 Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Angell, Holmes & Lea 838 F.2d 395 (9th Cir.1988) Fracasse v. Brent 6 Cal. 3d 784 (1972) Frye v. Tenderloin Hous. Clinic, Inc. 38 Cal. 4th 23 (2006)... 9 Heller Ehrman LLP v. Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, Nos. C CRB, C CRB, C CRB, C CRB, 2014 WL (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2014)... 14, 20 In re Thelen LLP 24 N.Y.3d 16 (2014) Jalali v. Root 109 Cal. App. 4th 1768 (2003) Jewel v. Boxer 156 Cal. App. 3d 171 (1984) Oliver v. Campbell 43 Cal. 2d 298 (1954) Thelen LLP v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP 736 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2013)... 5 iv
6 Statutes and Codes California Code of Civil Procedure Section Rules and Regulations ABA Model Rules, Rule Rule 1.16(a)(3) Rule 1.16(d)... 12, 23 Rule , 17 Rule 1.5(a) Rule 1.5(c) Rule 1.5(e) Rule California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1-100(A)... 9 Rule Rule 1-320(A)(2) Rule Rule 2-200(A) Rule 3-310(B)(3) Rule Rule 3-700(A)(2)... 2, 7, 22 Rule 3-700(D) Rule 3-700(D)(2) Rule , 15 Other Authorities ABA Formal Opinion 464 (2013) ABA Formal Opinion, 414 (1999) ABA General Information... 4 ABA Mission and Association Goals... 3 v
7 ABA Model Rules... 4 Cal. Formal Op. No Cal. Formal Op. No Cal. Formal Op. No Cal. Formal Op. No Cal. Formal Op. No Robert W. Hillman, Hillman on Lawyer Mobility: The Law and Ethics of Partner Withdrawals and Law Firm Breakups Section at 4: vi
8 INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE 1 The American Bar Association ( ABA ), as amicus curiae, respectfully submits this brief in support of Appellee, requests that the Court consider the important ethical implications that would be raised by an application of the unfinished business rule to client hourly rate matters, and urges that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed. As set forth in this brief, the ABA asserts that, when a client moves its hourly rate matters to a lawyer s new firm following dissolution of the lawyer s prior firm, the unfinished business rule should not be applied to those matters. Applying the unfinished business rule in this context would be inconsistent with the rules of professional conduct adopted in every jurisdiction (generally, and unless otherwise specified, Rules of Professional Conduct or Rules ), including the California Rules of Professional Conduct 1 No party s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or party s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief; and no person, other than ABA and its members, contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief. All parties have consented to the filing of this brief v1
9 ( California Rules ) and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (which are not binding except in the manner adopted by a jurisdiction) ( ABA Model Rules ). This is because the unfinished business rule entitles a dissolved firm, which cannot perform legal services, to all the profits from the fees earned by another law firm after the client has moved its matters to the other firm. Under the ethical rules, on the other hand, any division of fees between firms must be with client written consent and, if the fees are paid to a firm that did not earn them, the payment would be unconscionable. Furthermore, it has been conceded that the unfinished business rule does not apply if a former partner leaves prior to dissolution. If the unfinished business rule were applicable upon dissolution of a law firm which remains contested at this time then it is possible that lawyers might well feel impelled by the ethical rules to leave troubled firms to avoid, as stated in California Rule 3-700(A)(2), reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the[ir] client[s]. They may also need to consider whether to counsel their clients to do likewise. The unfinished business rule rests on the proposition that a dissolved firm has a property interest in a client s hourly rate matters; however, neither law, nor equity, nor policy supports such a conclusion. 2
10 The ABA is the leading organization of legal professionals and one of the largest voluntary professional membership organizations in the United States. Its nearly 400,000 members come from all fifty U.S. states and other jurisdictions, and include lawyers in private law firms, corporations, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and prosecutors and public defenders offices. They also include judges, legislators, law professors, law students, and non-lawyer associates in related fields. 2 In California alone, as of August 31, 2014, the ABA s membership included 35,406 lawyer members, 5,468 law student members, and 1,527 associates. Since its founding in 1878, the ABA has worked to promote the competence, ethical conduct and professionalism of lawyers as they balance their responsibilities to their clients, to the legal system, and to their own interests in making a living. 3 This work has included a continuing, intensive discourse and analysis of the standards and 2 Neither this brief nor the decision to file it should be interpreted to reflect the view of any judicial member of the ABA. No member of the Judicial Division Council participated in the adoption or endorsement of the positions in this brief, nor was it circulated to any member of the Judicial Division Council before filing. 3 See, e.g., ABA Mission and Association Goals, available at (last visited February 3, 2015). 3
11 policies that should govern attorneys in their endeavors. In 1908, this work resulted in the ABA s adoption of the first Canons of Professional Ethics, which are now the ABA Model Rules. 4 Protection of clients unfettered right to choose their counsel and to terminate that relationship at any time remains a foundation of the ABA Model Rules. The ABA respectfully submits that the Rules of Professional Conduct, including the California Rules and the case law and ethics opinions construing them, and the ABA Model Rules are particularly important to the resolution of the issues before this Court. 5 Each of 4 The ABA Model Rules are available at ations/model_rules_of_professional_ conduct.html. They have been continuously amended and updated through the efforts of ABA members, national, state and local bar organizations, academics, practicing lawyers, and the judiciary. Each Model Rule becomes ABA policy only after it is approved by the ABA House of Delegates, which is composed of 560 delegates representing, among others, states and territories, state and local bar associations, affiliated organizations, ABA sections and divisions, ABA members, and the Attorney General of the United States. See ABA General Information, available at leadership/delegates.html (last visited February 3, 2015). 5 The District Court applied California state partnership law and looked to the California Rules. In this brief, the ABA therefore discusses these as well, but notes that Heller was a national law firm and many of its former partners and their new law firms may be 4
12 them supports the District Court s conclusion that the unfinished business rule cannot be applied to a dissolved firm, its former lawyers, and their new firms, because neither law, nor equity, nor policy recognizes a law firm s property interest in a former client s hourly rate matters or a right to the fees from those matters earned by another law firm. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Clients are not commodities, and neither law firms nor lawyers own their clients or their clients matters. The California Rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted in every jurisdiction, as well as the ABA Model Rules, are based in part on a client s fundamental and unfettered right to select, retain, and change counsel at any time. Those Rules are not affected by a law firm s dissolution, even when a client s hourly rate matter is thereafter handled at a new firm by a former partner of the dissolved firm. The entitlement of a dissolved firm, under the unfinished business rule, to all the profits on subject to the laws and rules of other jurisdictions. See Thelen LLP v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 736 F.3d 213, 220 (2d Cir. 2013) (applying New York law to a limited liability partnership governed by California law). 5
13 such matters, however, is inconsistent with the ethical obligations that the new firm and former partner of the dissolved firm have to the client, as set out in the Rules adopted by the applicable jurisdiction. First, the Rules of Professional Conduct, in protecting the rights of a client, govern the legal fees a lawyer and firm can charge and collect from the client, and how they can divide those fees with another lawyer or firm. These rules cannot be squared with the unfinished business rule s requirement that profits on hourly rate matters be paid to a dissolved firm after the client has moved its matter and thus has discharged the dissolved firm to a former partner s new firm. Contrary to the Rules requiring that a lawyer and firm can only retain legal fees based on legal work performed, the unfinished business rule obligates the new firm nevertheless to pay over legal fees to the dissolved firm, which no longer represents the client and is no longer in business. Further, contrary to the Rules governing the division of legal fees between two firms, the unfinished business rule requires that the new firm divide legal fees with the dissolved firm without client written consent and in a manner that has no relationship to the services provided. The ABA asserts that these 6
14 two provisions alone are sufficient to establish that the unfinished business rule cannot be applied to a client s hourly rate matters. Second, because it is conceded that the unfinished business rule does not apply if a lawyer leaves a firm prior to its dissolution, a lawyer may feel impelled under the Rules of Professional Conduct to leave a firm at the first signs of financial trouble, to ensure that the lawyer or the new firm will not be required to divide fees with a dissolved firm that performed no legal services. Further, because those rules require lawyers, when leaving, to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the[ir] client[s], California Rule 3-700(A)(2), lawyers may also be impelled to counsel a client to move its hourly rate matters before the firm dissolves. The ABA asserts that none of these actions should be necessary under law, equity or policy because, as the District Court concluded, a dissolved firm has no property interest in a client s hourly rate matters on which an application of the unfinished business rule might be based. 7
15 ARGUMENT I. APPLICATION OF THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS RULE TO A CLIENT S HOURLY RATE MATTERS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. Clients, and not lawyers or law firms, own their matters. A client s ownership of its hourly rate matters is not altered when the lawyer handling those matters leaves a firm, even when the lawyer must leave because the firm has dissolved and can no longer provide legal services to the client. Under the unfinished business rule, though, a dissolved law firm would have a property interest in a client s hourly rate matters that the firm was handling at the time of dissolution, and would thus be entitled to the profits earned on those matters by new firms that the dissolved firm s partners join. The California Rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct, like the ABA Model Rules, however, impose obligations and restrictions on lawyers and law firms that protect clients fundamental and unfettered right to select, retain, and change counsel at any time, 8
16 and regulate how lawyers and firms may be paid for legal services. 6 These Rules are inconsistent with the unfinished business rule. This brief discusses the conflict between the unfinished business rule and the ethical responsibilities that govern the legal fees that lawyers and firms can charge a client and how lawyers and firms may divide those fees. Because of the integral role that legal fees play in the attorney-client relationship, the ABA asserts this discussion is sufficient to establish that, consistent with the Rules, the unfinished business rule cannot be applied to a dissolved firm s former hourly rate matters that are handled by a former partner and new firm. 6 While California has not adopted the ABA Model Rules, they may be helpful and persuasive in situations where the coverage of our Rules is unclear or inadequate. Frye v. Tenderloin Hous. Clinic, Inc., 38 Cal. 4th 23, 52 (2006); accord City & County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., 38 Cal. 4th 839, 852 (2006); California Rule 1-100(A) ( Although not binding, opinions of ethics committees in California should be consulted by members for guidance on proper professional conduct. Ethics opinions and rules and standards promulgated by other jurisdictions and bar associations may also be considered. ); Cal. Formal Op. No ( [I]n the absence of related California authority, we may look to the Model Rules, and the ABA Formal Opinions interpreting them, as well as the ethics opinions of other jurisdictions or bar associations for guidance. ). 9
17 A. Application Of The Unfinished Business Rule To A Client s Hourly Rate Matters Would Conflict With The Financial and Ethical Rules Regulating The Legal Fees That The Client Can Be Charged. As the California Supreme Court stated in Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal. 3d 784, 791 (1972), [I]t is a basic term of the [attorney-client] contract, implied by law that the client may terminate that contract at will. See also Champion v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 201 Cal. App. 3d 777, 783 (1988) (noting the close relation between the client s right to retain counsel of choice and the client s right to discharge counsel). As the State Bar of California stated, [L]awyers serve at the pleasure of their clients; a client always maintains the right to terminate the services of a lawyer at any time. Cal. Formal Op. No See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 284. Indeed, this Court has held that [a] client s power to discharge an attorney, with or without cause, is absolute. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Angell, Holmes & Lea, 838 F.2d 395, 395 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, ABA Model Rule 1.16(a)(3) requires that a lawyer withdraw from representing a client if discharged by the client. The client s absolute right to terminate a lawyer, however, cannot be squared with the unfinished business rule. If the unfinished 10
18 business rule were applied, it would give a dissolved law firm the right after the client has moved the matter and thus has discharged the dissolved firm to be paid all of the profits on a client s hourly rate matter that are earned by a former partner s new law firm, even though the dissolved firm did not and could not perform any legal services for which those profits were earned. In addition to ignoring the client s absolute right to discharge a firm, the requirement that all profits be paid to the dissolved firm would conflict with the Rules of Professional Conduct, including the California Rules and ABA Model Rules, under which a firm cannot charge fees for legal services that it did not perform. Further, California Rule prohibits a lawyer from charging or collecting an illegal or unconscionable fee, and California courts have held that fees [that] have no relationship whatsoever to the amount of service provided or to be provided by the partnership to the client are unconscionable. Champion v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 201 Cal. App. 3d 777, 783 (1988). California Rule 3-700(D)(2) requires that a discharged attorney [p]romptly refund any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned (excluding a true retainer paid solely to ensure a lawyer s availability). The 11
19 unfinished business rule, therefore, would permit a dissolved firm to charge, collect and retain an unconscionable free, and require the former partner and new firm to acquiesce in its doing so. California courts also have held that when a client discharges a lawyer, the lawyer is only entitled to compensation for the value of work performed. E.g., Jalali v. Root, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1768, 1777 (2003) (when a client exercises the unilateral right to discharge his or her attorney with or without cause at any time even on the courthouse steps, the attorney only has a right to quantum meruit recovery representing the value of past work); Oliver v. Campbell, 43 Cal. 2d 298, 304 (1954) (discharged attorney entitled only to the reasonable value of services recoverable by the employee for his past performance ). Likewise, under the ABA Model Rules, legal fees must be earned: ABA Model Rule 1.5(a) prohibits a lawyer from charging or collecting an unreasonable fee, while Model Rule 1.5(c) provides that a lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred. In addition, ABA Model Rule 1.16(d) provides that any advance payment of fee 12
20 or expense that has not been earned or incurred must be refunded upon termination of the representation. The unfinished business rule concerns profits earned by a new firm after a client had no choice but to move its matter to a new firm; the rule does not concern fees that a firm might have earned prior to its dissolution. A requirement that a former partner and the new law firm must pay such profits to the dissolved firm would conflict with the ethics principles under which lawyers and their firms may be paid only for the work they perform. B. Application Of The Unfinished Business Rule To A Client s Hourly Rate Matters Conflicts With The Ethical Rules Regulating The Division Of Legal Fees. It is axiomatic that a law firm that hires a former partner of a dissolved firm cannot be the same firm as the dissolved firm. Thus, the ethics rules on the division of legal fees must apply in the unfinished business context. See Robert W. Hillman, Hillman on Lawyer Mobility: The Law and Ethics of Partner Withdrawals and Law Firm Breakups at 4:156 n.40 ( By concluding that the partnership continues during the winding-up phase, these opinions are able to elude ethics restrictions on fee splitting when lawyers are not members of the same firm. ) (citing, inter alia, Jewel v. Boxer,
21 Cal. App. 3d 171 (1984). See Heller Ehrman LLP v. Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, Nos. C CRB, C CRB, C CRB, C CRB, 2014 WL , at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2014) (in which the court below concluded that Jewel is outmoded and inapplicable to the facts presented in this case). 7 The Rules of Professional Conduct governing the division of legal fees require that the client must consent to and understand the basis for any division of fees between firms, and that the total fee 7 Compare Anderson, McPharlin & Connors v. Yee, 135 Cal. App. 4 th 129 (2005), in which the court found that California Rule did not apply to a partnership agreement that contained a liquidated damages provision under which a former partner was required to turn over 25% of the fees he earned for a 24-month period on matters begun at his former firm. Thus, Rule did not apply because the construction of a partnership agreement did not involve two firms. See also Cal. Formal Op. No (no division of fees, and Rule did not apply, where a lawyer billed a firm in which he was not a partner or employee for his regular hourly rate, and the firm then re-billed that amount to the client and paid it over to the lawyer when paid by the client; the law firm did not retain any portion of the fee and acted merely as a collection agent). The unfinished business rule, however, is based on the ownership of matters and the Appellant seeks to impose obligations on other law firms, and not former Heller Ehrman LLP ( Heller ) partners, to disgorge all profits for an unlimited period of time earned on matters after the clients had moved their matters to another firm. Here, California Rule does apply because Heller and the firms the Heller trustee has sued were never partners in the same law firm. 14
22 charged must not be increased solely because of the division and cannot be unconscionable. For example, California Rule 2-200(A) provides: A member shall not divide a fee for legal services with a lawyer who is not a partner of, associate of, or shareholder with the member unless: (1) The client has consented in writing thereto after a full disclosure has been made in writing that the division will be made and the terms of such division; and (2) The total fee charged by all lawyers is not increased solely by reason of the provision for division of fees and is not unconscionable as that term is defined in rule ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), which also requires client consent, provides additional requirements: the division of fees may be made only if the division [of fees] is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation[.] Comment [7] to ABA Model Rule 1.5 explains: Joint responsibility for the representation entails financial and ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were associated in a partnership. Application of the unfinished business rule, however, would require the new law firm of a former partner of a dissolved firm to (1) pay over profits that are not in proportion to any services performed, (2) make those payments to a firm that, because it 15
23 is dissolved, cannot assume ethical responsibility for the representation, and (3) make these arrangements without client consent. See also ABA Formal Opinion 464 (2013) (lawyer entering into an arrangement for division of fees must reasonably believe that the other lawyers services will contribute to the competent and ethical representation of the client. ) (citing Comment [6] to ABA Model Rule 1.1.) 8 California Rule 3-310(B)(3) also prohibits a lawyer from accepting or continuing a representation without written disclosure to the client where [t]he member has or had a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with another person or entity the member knows or reasonably should know would be affected substantially by resolution of the matter. Contrary to the intention of this Rule, a disclosure that a former partner s new law firm would be required by the unfinished business rule to pay over profits on a client s hourly rate matters to the dissolved firm may affect the trust 8 In fact, because a dissolved firm no longer has any ability to perform legal services, California Rule is relevant. That Rule prohibits a lawyer from directly or indirectly sharing legal fees with a person who is not a lawyer (except in certain circumstances), even with the client s consent. ABA Model Rule 5.4 similarly prohibits sharing legal fees with nonlawyers except in limited circumstances not applicable here. 16
24 necessary to the attorney-client relationship. A client may question the interests of its lawyer after it is informed that the coffers of the lawyer s former law firm, now in dissolution but not the coffers of the lawyer s new firm will be increased by payment of the new firm s profits to the dissolved firm. The client also might question whether the lawyer is conducting the representation in a manner that will result in payment of as little as possible to the dissolved firm. See Comment [5] to ABA Model Rule 1.5 ( An agreement may not be made whose terms might induce the lawyer improperly to curtail services for the client or perform them in a way contrary to the client s interest. ). 9 Even a comparison between the unfinished business rule and the requirements for division of fees with the estate of a deceased partner does not support payment of profits to a dissolved firm. California Rule 1-320(A)(2) provides that a member or law firm 9 Comment [8] to ABA Model Rule 1.5, however, clearly applies only to payment of fees to a former firm for work done before a lawyer leaves a firm. It states: Paragraph (e) [of ABA Model Rule 1.5] does not prohibit or regulate division of fees to be received in the future for work done when lawyers were previously associated in a law firm. Comment [8], thus, does not apply to the division of fees earned on work performed on a client s hourly rate matter after a firm s dissolution. 17
25 undertaking to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased member may pay to the estate of the deceased member or other person legally entitled thereto that proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased member. Thus, a partner s estate does not receive payments for work done after the partner s death. On the other hand, the unfinished business rule requires that a dissolve firm receive the profits on work done by another firm after the dissolved firm, in effect, has died. Finally, under the unfinished business rule, a dissolved firm could seek profits without consideration of the relative amount of work it performed before being discharged and the amount of work performed by the client s new law firm. Thus, even if the client s new firm might spend years defending a lawsuit for example, a major antitrust matter and even if the dissolved firm had only just begun representation when it dissolved and had already collected all its fees for the work it undertook, application of the unfinished business doctrine would permit the dissolved law firm to claim years of profits from the client s new firm. Any payment of profits earned by the new firm to the dissolved firm consequently would have no relationship 18
26 whatsoever to the amount of service provided or to be provided by the partnership to the client. Champion, 201 Cal. App. 3d at 783. By requiring a lawyer to pay profits to a dissolved firm, the unfinished business rule would be, in these and other ways, inconsistent with the ethical rules governing the division of fees adopted in California and across the country. II. APPLICATION OF THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS RULE TO A CLIENT S HOURLY RATE MATTERS WOULD ENCOURAGE ATTORNEYS TO LEAVE THEIR FIRMS AT THE FIRST SIGNS OF FINANCIAL TROUBLE AND TO COUNSEL THEIR CLIENTS TO DO THE SAME. As discussed above, the California Rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted across the nation, as well as the ABA Model Rules, circumscribe a lawyer s ability to charge, collect and divide fees. As also discussed above, application of the unfinished business rule to hourly rate matters that a client has moved to the new firm of a former partner would require payment of the new firm s profits to the dissolved firm. This result would be inconsistent with the ethical responsibilities of the former partner and the new firm. On the other hand, as Heller s trustee conceded below, the unfinished business rule does not apply to matters that a former partner took to a new firm if the former partner left before dissolution. 19
27 See Heller Ehrman LLP v. Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, Nos. C CRB, C CRB, C CRB, C CRB, 2014 WL , at *2-3, *6 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2014). As the New York Court of Appeals stated, [A]ttorneys who wait too long are placed in a very difficult position. They might advise their clients that they can no longer afford to represent them, a major inconvenience for the clients and a practical restriction on a client s right to choose counsel. In re Thelen LLP, 24 N.Y.3d 16, 32 (2014). Were the client s chosen lawyer no longer able to continue to represent the client, being required to change lawyers may also impose significant costs on the client. Application of the unfinished business rule may thus encourage partners to leave their firms at the first sign of financial trouble. Although leaving a troubled firm would certainly further destabilize the firm, especially if enough partners likewise left, doing so would protect clients from the fee division issues that would arise if the unfinished business rule were to apply. Further, the partners might well reason that if they wait until their firm dissolves before joining a new firm, they might not be able to find a new firm that is willing, or that can financially afford, to finish the matters on which 20
28 they are working, especially if a matter would require a significant investment of the new firm s resources, including work by other partners on the matter, or if it would require the new firm to forego other engagements due to conflicts. In fact, the larger the matter, the more difficult it likely would be for a former partner to find a new firm that would take on the client s matter for no profit, and the more costly and potentially detrimental to the client it would be to start over at a firm that includes no former partners of the dissolved firm. Of course, any time a client loses its chosen counsel, the economic reality of the application of the unfinished business rule is that the client endures the cost of bringing new counsel up to speed. Indeed, if the unfinished business rule must be applied to a client s hourly rate matters on dissolution of a law firm which remains highly disputed at this time then it would appear that a lawyer should also counsel the client on the ramifications of a dissolution on any hourly rate matters that remain with a firm when it dissolves. In fact, under the ethical rules that apply when a lawyer leaves a law firm, including when a lawyer must leave because of a firm s dissolution, it would appear that the lawyer should counsel a 21
29 client that, because of the unfinished business rule, the client should also leave the troubled firm prior to its dissolution. For example, California Rule 3-700(A)(2) provides that a member shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules. 10 As explained in State Bar of California Formal Op. No , The requirements of rule 3-700(A)(2) apply when an attorney s withdrawal is prompted by the dissolution of the attorney s law firm. And, as elucidated in State Bar of California Formal Opinion No , which discussed the predecessor to California Rule 3-700, [T]he rules in these circumstances act as a regulatory framework, and their provisions dictate that the interests of the clients must prevail over all competing considerations if the practitioner s withdrawal from the firm or the firm s dissolution is to be accomplished in a manner consistent with professional responsibility. See also ABA 10 California Rule 3-700(D) similarly requires that a lawyer promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property. 22
30 Model Rule 1.16(d) ( Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client s interests.... ); ABA Formal Opinion 414 (1999) at 5 (departing lawyer and responsible members of the firm must notify the client of the client s alternatives and must make clear that the client has the ultimate right to decide who will complete or continue the matters. ). The ABA respectfully asserts that lawyers should not feel obligated to leave troubled law firms before dissolution to avoid application of the unfinished business rule to their clients hourly rate matters. Further, lawyers should not need to protect their clients by counseling them that they should also leave. The ABA urges that, because a dissolved law firm which can perform no legal services has no property interest in a client s hourly rate matters, neither law, nor equity, nor policy should require these actions. 23
31 CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, amicus curiae the American Bar Association respectfully requests that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed. Dated: February 24, 2015 Respectfully submitted, s/ William C. Hubbard OF COUNSEL: DAVID G. KEYKO KEVIN M. FONG JAY D. DEALY WILLIAM C. HUBBARD Counsel of Record PRESIDENT AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 321 North Clark Street Chicago, Illinois (312) Attorneys for Amicus Curiae American Bar Association 24
32 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because: it contains 5068 words according to the word count of the word processing system used to prepare the brief, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because: it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14 point Times New Roman font. Dated: February 24, 2015 s/ William C. Hubbard OF COUNSEL: DAVID G. KEYKO KEVIN M. FONG JAY D. DEALY WILLIAM C. HUBBARD Counsel of Record PRESIDENT AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 321 North Clark Street Chicago, Illinois (312) Attorneys for Amicus Curiae American Bar Association 25
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on February 24, 2015, which will automatically serve all parties. Dated: February 24, 2015 OF COUNSEL: David G. Keyko Kevin M. Fong Jay D. Dealy s/ William C. Hubbard William C. Hubbard Counsel of Record President American Bar Association 321 North Clark Street Chicago, Illinois (312)
Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Appellant,
Case: 16-16056, 03/24/2017, ID: 10370294, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 1 of 7 Case No. 16-16056 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TEMPUR-SEALY
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv CW
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 4 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS HOTCHALK, INC. No. 16-17287 v. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-03883-CW
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Appeal Docket No. 14-1754 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT JOHANNA BETH McDONOUGH, vs. ANOKA COUNTY, ET AL. Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
More informationCase No. C IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Case No. C081929 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Respondent,
More informationCase No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. TIMOTHY WHITE, ROBERT L. BETTINGER, and MARGARET SCHOENINGER,
Case: 12-17489 09/22/2014 ID: 9248883 DktEntry: 63 Page: 1 of 12 Case No. 12-17489 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY WHITE, ROBERT L. BETTINGER, and MARGARET SCHOENINGER,
More informationQUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS
QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 established a specific set of rules under which pension benefits can be paid to an alternate payee (a former spouse for dependent child)
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case: 14-10296 Date Filed: 04/11/2014 Page: 1 of 8 No. 14-10296 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
More informationNo: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. JOHN C. GORMAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant
Case: 06-17226 03/09/2009 Page: 1 of 21 DktEntry: 6838631 No: 06-17226 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN C. GORMAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON,
More informationCalifornia Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Narrow Restraint Exception
California Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Narrow Restraint Exception And Holds That Employment Non- Competition Agreements Are Invalid Unless They Fall Within Limited Statutory Exceptions On August
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Case: 12-54 Document: 001113832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Entry ID: 2173182 No. 12-054 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT In re LOUIS B. BULLARD, Debtor LOUIS B. BULLARD,
More informationNo. 18-SP-218 IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. ALLAN B. DIAMOND, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR HOWREY LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
No. 18-SP-218 IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS ALLAN B. DIAMOND, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR HOWREY LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENSON KASOWITZ, et al., Defendants-Appellees. On Questions of Law
More informationKENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-424 Issued: March 2005
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-424 Issued: March 2005 Since the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct in 1990, the Kentucky Supreme Court has adopted various amendments, and made
More informationCase 3:16-cv JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:16-cv-00040-JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS v. Plaintiff, Case
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15 2516 RONALD OLIVA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE, LLC, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States
More informationAmerican Bar Association Commission on Ethics 20/20 Resolution
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV Technology Center 2100 Decided: January 7, 2010 Before JAMES T. MOORE and ALLEN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 45 July 14, 2016 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Roman KIRYUTA, Respondent on Review, v. COUNTRY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner on Review. (CC 130101380; CA A156351; SC S063707)
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before O'BRIEN, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
ACLYS INTERNATIONAL, a Utah limited liability company, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 6, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO SAMUEL DE DIOS, INDEMNITY INSRUANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and BRODSIPRE SERVICES, INC.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO. 18-1227 ELECTRONICALLY FILED NOV 09, 2018 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT SAMUEL DE DIOS, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, INDEMNITY INSRUANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and BRODSIPRE SERVICES,
More informationDoes a Taxpayer Have the Burden of Showing Intent to Divert Corporate Funds as Return of Capital?
Michigan State University College of Law Digital Commons at Michigan State University College of Law Faculty Publications 1-1-2008 Does a Taxpayer Have the Burden of Showing Intent to Divert Corporate
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JOHN D. DUDLEY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC 07-1747 vs. DCA CASE NO.: 5D06-3821 ELLEN F. SCHMIDT, Respondent. / PETITIONER S AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF Richard J. D
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv RNS
Deborah Johnson, et al v. Catamaran Health Solutions, LL, et al Doc. 1109519501 Case: 16-11735 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationCase 3:09-cv N-BQ Document 201 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3204
Case 3:09-cv-01736-N-BQ Document 201 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3204 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S OF LONDON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: ARNALDO VELEZ, an individual, TAYLOR, BRION, BUKER & GREENE, a general partnership, vs. Petitioners, BIRD LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Panamanian corporation, Respondent.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv JLK. versus
Merly Nunez v. GEICO General Insurance Compan Doc. 1116498500 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] MERLY NUNEZ, a.k.a. Nunez Merly, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. INTRODUCTION
FOR PUBLICATION 0 0 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ANTONIO A. SANTOS, on behalf of Susana A. Santos (deceased, Claimant-Appellant, vs. PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Turner et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 DAMON G. TURNER and KRISTINE A. TURNER, v. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT REICHERT, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 06-15503 NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC., a D.C. No. foreign corporation doing
More informationNOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND HEARING DATE FOR COURT APPROVAL
ATTENTION: NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND HEARING DATE FOR COURT APPROVAL BANK BRANCH STORE MANAGERS EMPLOYED BY WELLS FARGO BANK, NA ( DEFENDANT ) WHO: WORKED IN A LEVEL 1
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 141 Filed: 12/06/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1455
Case: 1:16-cv-04773 Document #: 141 Filed: 12/06/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1455 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ARTUR A. NISTRA, on behalf of The ) Bradford Hammacher
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON SUSAN KAY MALIK, Plaintiff/Appellee, Shelby Chancery No. 21988-1 R.D. VS. Appeal No. 02A01-9604-CH-00070 KAFAIT U. MALIK, Defendant/Appellant.
More informationORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1177 Document #1653244 Filed: 12/28/2016 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PHH CORPORATION, PHH MORTGAGE
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-2141 Troy K. Scheffler lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellant v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A. llllllllllllllllllllldefendant - Appellee Appeal from
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 23, 2010 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT CARLOS E. SALA; TINA ZANOLINI-SALA, Plaintiffs
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED Nos , , , ,
USCA Case #13-1280 Document #1504903 Filed: 07/28/2014 Page 1 of 17 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED Nos. 13-1280, 13-1281, 13-1291, 13-1300, 14-1006 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District
More informationCertificate of Interested Persons
May 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Office of the Clerk F. Edward Hebert Building 600 S. Maestri Place New Orleans, LA 70130-3408 Re: Ariana M. v. Humana Health
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1
Case: 1:18-cv-08328 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BART KARLSON, Individually, and on behalf
More informationVol. 2014, No. 11 November 2014 Michael C. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief
Vol. 2014, No. 11 November 2014 Michael C. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief California Supreme Court Provides Guidance on the Commissioned Salesperson Exemption KARIMAH J. LAMAR... 415 CA Labor & Employment Bulletin
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ATTALA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Jun 30 2016 11:18:49 2015-CA-01772 Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BROOKS V. MONAGHAN VERSUS ROBERT AUTRY APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 2015-CA-01772 APPELLEE APPEAL
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-858 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; AND PRA RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA. v. ) Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA JAY CAMPBELL, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Case No. THE CITY OF GARDENDALE, ALABAMA; JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. CASE NO. SC96659 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT BEELER P0WER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. CASE NO. SC96659 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant. / REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT INTERLOCUTORY
More informationCASE NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. SANDRA CLARK and RHONDA KNOOP,
CASE NO. 03-6393 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SANDRA CLARK and RHONDA KNOOP, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and ELI BROCK, Defendants-Appellees. On
More informationVan Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001).
Van Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001). CLICK HERE to return to the home page No. 96-36068. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT
E-Filed Document Feb 22 2016 15:38:11 2015-CA-00890 Pages: 8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2015-CA-00890 CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT VS WILLIE B. JORDAN APPELLEE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No.: SC ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENTS BARBARA REIS AND JOSEPH REIS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Case No.: SC06-962 BARBARA REIS and JOSEPH REIS, Respondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RICHARD B.WEBBER, II, as the Chapter 7 Trustee for FREDERICK J. KEITEL, III, and FJK IV PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Jointly
More informationEisele Ashburn Greene & Chapman, PA, by Douglas G. Eisele, for Plaintiff Lavonne R. Ekren
Ekren v. K&E Real Estate Invs., LLC, 2015 NCBC 107. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IREDELL COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 12 CVS 508 LAVONNE R. EKREN, Plaintiff, v. K&E REAL ESTATE
More informationALAN FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. WALTER C. PETERSON, as City Clerk etc., et al., Respondents
87 Cal. App. 2d 727; 197 P.2d 788; 1948 Cal. App. LEXIS 1385 ALAN FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. WALTER C. PETERSON, as City Clerk etc., et al., Respondents Civ. No. 16329 Court of Appeal of California, Second
More informationORDINANCE 1670 City of Southfield
ORDINANCE 1670 City of Southfield AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14 TITLE 1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHFIELD TITLED THE RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFIT PLAN AND TRUST. The City of Southfield Ordains: Section
More informationWhen Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer?
When Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer? Michael John Miguel Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP Los Angeles, California The limit of liability theory lies within the imagination of the
More information101 Central Plaza South, Ste. 600 Tzangas, Plakas, Mannos, & Raies
[Cite as Kemp v. Kemp, 2011-Ohio-177.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JEANNE KEMP, NKA GAGE Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- MICHAEL KEMP Defendant-Appellant JUDGES Hon. Julie A. Edwards,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE CLIFTON CUNNINGHAM and DON TEED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, -against- Plaintiffs, FEDERAL EXPRESS
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 SABIR A. RAHMAN. JACOB GEESING et al.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2217 September Term, 2015 SABIR A. RAHMAN v. JACOB GEESING et al. Nazarian, Beachley, Davis, Arrie W. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
More informationNo GARY L. FRANCE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
No. 15-24 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GARY L. FRANCE, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationCase 3:12-cv SCW Document 23 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:12-cv-00999-SCW Document 23 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CITY OF MARION, ILL., Plaintiff, vs. U.S. SPECIALTY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-10210 Document: 00513387132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
More informationCRUMMEY v. COMMISSIONER. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 397 F.2d 82 June 25, 1968
BYRNE, District Judge: CRUMMEY v. COMMISSIONER UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 397 F.2d 82 June 25, 1968 This case involves cross petitions for review of decisions of the Tax Court
More informationBRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF AARP IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR HEARING EN BANC OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
No. 11-2889 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit KATHLEEN G. SCHULTZ and MARY KELLY, on their behalf and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY. Trial Court No CV-0525
[Cite as Fantozz v. Cordle, 2015-Ohio-4057.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY Jo Dee Fantozz, Erie Co. Treasurer Appellee Court of Appeals No. E-14-130 Trial Court No.
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) SUFI Network Services, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. F D-0057 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) SUFI Network Services, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 55948 ) Under Contract No. F41999-96-D-0057 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allstate Life Insurance Company, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 89 F.R. 1997 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Argued: December 9, 2009 Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RICARDO SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, CASE NO. CIVDS1702554 v. Plaintiffs, NOTICE
More informationLeaving Law Firms and Taking Clients: Florida Emphasis and National Perspective
Upchurch Watson White & Max Mediation Group and the University of Florida Levin College of Law Institute for Dispute Resolution are proud to co-sponsor today s Webinar: Leaving Law Firms and Taking Clients:
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO 101 West Colfax Ave., Suite 800 Denver, Colorado 80202
COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO 101 West Colfax Ave., Suite 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 Appeal from the District Court, City and County of Denver Hon. William D. Robbins, District Court Judge, Case
More informationAppellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-06 - 19 vs. CARRIE CLARK, Appellant, Lower Court Case
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Fru-Con Construction Corporation ) ) ASBCA No Under Contract No. DACW69-93-C-0022 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Fru-Con Construction Corporation ) ) ASBCA No. 53794 Under Contract No. DACW69-93-C-0022 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case: 14-4764 Document: 003111855079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 No. 14-4764 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT TRINITY WALL STREET, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., A
More informationQUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND THRIFT PLAN
See your attorney. This is merely a SAMPLE Qualified Domestic Relations Order that may be appropriate for use with respect to the Los Angeles County Deferred Compensation and Thrift Plan. This SAMPLE document
More informationCASE NO. 1D Roy W. Jordan, Jr., of Roy W. Jordan, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SUSAN GENA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-1783
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D07-477 BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. On Review of a Decision of the Third District
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2986 Lower Tribunal No. 99-993 Mario Gonzalez,
More informationPhilip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2013 Philip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
More informationStructuring a Law Firm Under Georgia Law
Chapter 5 Structuring a Law Firm Under Georgia Law 5-1 INTRODUCTION There are various options under Georgia law for structuring a law firm partnership, including as a professional association, traditional
More informationDepartment of Labor Reverses Course: Mortgage Loan Officers Do Not Meet the Administrative Exemption s Requirements
A Timely Analysis of Legal Developments A S A P In This Issue: March 2010 In a development that may have significant implications for mortgage lenders and other financial services employers, the Department
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-299 SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellees. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES
More informationNo and No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE H. VOSS AND CHARLES J. SOPHY, Petitioners and Appellants, vs.
Case: 12-73261 01/30/2013 ID: 8495002 DktEntry: 12 Page: 1 of 33 No. 12-73257 and No. 12-73261 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE H. VOSS AND CHARLES J. SOPHY, Petitioners and Appellants,
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 300 Filed: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:5178
Case: 1:18-cv-05587 Document #: 300 Filed: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:5178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION _ ) U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ) COMMISSION,
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER] ) APPELLANT S MOTION TO Plaintiff and Respondent,
[ATTORNEY NAME, BAR #] [ATTORNEY FIRM] [FIRM ADDRESS] [TELEPHONE] Attorney for Defendant and Appellant COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER] In re [CHILD
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 04/28/2017 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROX-ANN REIFER, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee No. 321 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Order
More informationLeamington Co., petitioner, Appellant, vs. Nonprofits' Ins. Association, an Interinsurance C STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT
Leamington Co., petitioner, Appellant, vs. Nonprofits' Ins. Association, an Interinsurance Exchange, Respondent. C9-98-2056 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT Filed: August 3, 2000 Court of Appeals Office
More informationCircuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL-16-38707 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 177 September Term, 2017 DAWUD J. BEST v. COHN, GOLDBERG AND DEUTSCH, LLC Berger,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Alps Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Turkaly et al Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ALPS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
More informationCourt of Appeals of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia Appellate Filing Procedure Lantagne Legal Printing 801 East Main Street, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2472 Richmond, Virginia 23219 2472 (804) 644 0477 1 800 847 0477 FAX (804)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 16, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 16, 2010 Session STEVEN ANDERSON v. ROY W. HENDRIX, JR. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-07-1317 Kenny W. Armstrong, Chancellor
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. BASIK EXPORTS & IMPORTS, INC., Petitioner, v. PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
John D. Fiero (CA Bar No. ) Kenneth H. Brown (CA Bar No. 00) Miriam Khatiblou (CA Bar No. ) Teddy M. Kapur (CA Bar No. ) 0 California Street, th Floor San Francisco, California -00 Telephone: /-000 Facsimile:
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-3-2013 USA v. Edward Meehan Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-3392 Follow this and additional
More informationReceived by Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two
No. E067711 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO MACY'S WEST STORES, INC., DBA MACY'S, AND MACY'S, INC., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
More informationMODEL QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO)
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 292 PENSION PLAN MODEL QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO) POST-RETIREMENT THE DIVISION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS INVOLVES COMPLEX TAX AND LEGAL ISSUES. THE ELECTRICAL WORKERS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HIGHLAND COUNTY. : vs. : : Released: April 9, 2007 ASSOCIATED PUBLIC : APPEARANCES:
[Cite as Pollock v. Associated Public Adjusters, 2007-Ohio-1726.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HIGHLAND COUNTY DAVID POLLOCK, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 06CA8 : vs.
More information[Cite as Oh v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 2004-Ohio-565.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as Oh v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 2004-Ohio-565.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT KONG T. OH, M.D., d.b.a. ) CASE NO. 02 CA 142 OH EYE ASSOCIATES )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 115-cv-04130-RWS Document 55 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION PRINCIPLE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. IRONSHORE
More informationUnited States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Williams Jr., Defendant-Appellant: Reply Brief of Appellant
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic Law School Clinics and Centers 2014 United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationGroup Health Plan Design Under the Illinois Civil Union Act
Group Health Plan Design Under the Illinois Civil Union Act Background On January 31, 2011, Governor Pat Quinn signed into law the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act ( Civil Union
More informationNo. 47,320-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * *
Judgment rendered September 20, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 47,320-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * RHONDA
More informationArticles of Incorporation
Articles of Incorporation (As amended and restated through April 21, 2008) ELI LILLY AND COMPANY (an Indiana corporation) AMENDED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 1. The name of the Corporation shall be ELI LILLY
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
No. 17-3030 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit WENDY DOLIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STEWART DOLIN, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE
More informationVarious publications, including FTB Publication 7277, "Personal Personal Income Tax Notice of Action
M0RRISON I FOERS 'ER Legal Updates & News Legal Updates California State Board of Equalization Adopts New Rules for Franchise Tax Board Tax Appeals May 2008 by Eric J. Cofill Coffill Related Practices:
More information