Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

litigationattorneyappealtrialfiduciarypartnershipfiduciary duty
contractattorneytrialpartnership

Related Cases

Olfe v. Gordon, 93 Wis.2d 173, 286 N.W.2d 573
View Case »
Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 251 A.D.2d 35, 675 N.Y.S.2d 14
View Case »
Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So.3d 867, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1514
View Case »
Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 90 L.Ed. 1447, 69 U.S.P.Q. 454
View Case »
Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal.App.3d 171, 203 Cal.Rptr. 13

Facts

The law firm of Jewel, Boxer and Elkind was dissolved by mutual agreement among its four partners. Following the dissolution, the partners formed two new firms and sent letters to clients announcing the dissolution, with clients retaining the attorneys who had handled their cases. The former partners lacked a written partnership agreement regarding the allocation of fees from active cases, leading to a dispute over the proper allocation of attorney fees received from these cases.

On December 2, 1977, the law firm of Jewel, Boxer and Elkind was dissolved by mutual agreement of its four partners—Howard H. Jewel, Stewart N. Boxer, Peter F. Elkind, and Brian O. Leary.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether attorney fees received from unfinished business after the dissolution of a law partnership should be allocated according to the partners' respective interests in the dissolved partnership, and whether the trial court erred in its allocation method.

At issue here is the proper allocation of attorneys' fees received from these cases, some of which were still active at trial.

Rule

Under the Uniform Partnership Act, attorney fees received on cases in progress upon dissolution of a law partnership are to be shared by the former partners according to their right to fees in the former partnership, regardless of which former partner provided legal services after dissolution.

Under the Uniform Partnership Act (Corp.Code, § 15000 et seq.), a dissolved partnership continues until the winding up of unfinished partnership business.

Analysis

The court applied the Uniform Partnership Act to determine that the attorney fees from unfinished business should be allocated based on the partners' respective interests in the dissolved partnership. The court rejected the trial court's quantum meruit approach, emphasizing that the substitutions of attorneys did not change the nature of the cases as unfinished business of the old firm. The court noted that the absence of a written partnership agreement invited litigation and that the partners had a fiduciary duty to wind up the unfinished business equitably.

Thus in Rosenfeld a client's retention of a new firm consisting of two former partners of the dissolved firm that previously handled the client's case did not transform the case into new partnership business: 'It is clear that a partner completing unfinished business cannot cut off the rights of the other partners in the dissolved partnership by the tactic of entering into a ‘new’ contract to complete such business.'

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for allocation of post-dissolution income according to the partners' respective interests in the former partnership.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Jewel and Leary prevailed in the case because the Court of Appeal found that the trial court's allocation method was incorrect and that the attorney fees should be shared according to the partners' interests in the dissolved partnership.

Jewel and Leary contend that the court erred in failing to adhere to the rule precluding extra compensation, and should have allocated all post-dissolution fees from the old firm's unfinished cases to the four former partners according to their respective percentage interests in the old firm.

You must be