Our Blog

Employment Contracts Must Not Create Financial Disincentives

August 7, 2013

Often times law firm employment contracts will set forth the amount of the fee the departing attorney is entitled to should current clients go with a departing attorney when she leaves. The amount can never be contingent upon whether or not she informed her clients that she is leaving. She has an ethical obligation to do so. There is much case law regarding this matter. The case law comes from many different jurisdictions.

Generally speaking those agreements which are made at the time of the departure and which entitle the departing attorney to less than 50% of the overall fee, regardless of the model work done on the file after she leaves, are questionable. This is not to say that law firms do not have an interest in protecting their efforts to originally obtain the files, but those calculations must be fair. Generally speaking once the 50% barrier is reached many courts have began to question whether or not there is a financial disincentive to the attorney to continue to represent those clients who wish to go with her.

In our firm we have dealt with these matters in a successful fashion. If you are either an employer or an attorney who has departed a law firm please contact us with any questions you may have. We would also be happy to represent you in this area. Although contracts can never make a fee contingent upon hiding the fact that you’re leaving, there are ways to fairly protect your interests.

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Sovereign Immunity Grounds Do Not Always Apply

In Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, (4th Dept. 2013) the court held that “The central question on this appeal is whether defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC), a corporation formed under the laws of the Seneca Nation of Indians (Nation or SNI), is protected

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Jeep Strollers causing injury prompting recall

Jeep vehicles aren’t the only thing being recalled bearing the “Jeep” name. Kolcraft is recalling Jeep Liberty Strollers. These strollers look rough and tumble and provide your little one with a comfy looking ride complete with toy steering wheel, key, and gear shifter. However, they are causing injuries

Read Blog