ABA Looks to Clean Up Process Surrounding Lateral Moves
The opinion provides guidance on two often fraught issues in lateral moves: notice provisions for departures and client solicitation.
December 05, 2019 at 03:39 PM
4 minute read
The American Bar Association issued a formal opinion that fleshed out the ethical obligations for attorneys and firms involved in a lateral move, guidance that comes at a time when partner transience reaches a fevered pitch and competition for clients becomes increasingly cutthroat.
Recruiters praised the opinion, formal opinion 489, for providing guidance on two often fraught issues in a lateral move: notice provisions for departures and client solicitation.
In the opinion, the ABA stated that law firms cannot subject their attorneys to "fixed" or "rigidly applied" notice provisions—clauses that are common in partnership agreements. Instead, they should opt for the standard of "reasonable notice," which primarily takes into account client interests, the ABA said.
The opinion also addressed issues surrounding client solicitation, stating that while it is preferable for a law firm and the departing attorney to issue a joint statement, firms cannot prohibit the lateral attorney from soliciting firm clients once the firm is notified of the departure.
"Essentially, the opinion makes clear that such restrictions or other stratagems which firms have employed to try and secure an advantage in trying to retain the business of clients who are likely to depart with the partner are not permitted," said New York litigator Geri Krauss, author of "Partner Departures and Lateral Moves, A Legal and Ethical Guide."
The opinion also noted that a firm cannot try to dislodge an attorney's influence on a client by, for example, assigning a new lawyer to a client's matter predeparture.
What constitutes a "reasonable" notice period or "penalty" is subject to the interpretations of state bars. In many states, local laws concerning an attorney's fiduciary duty to a client may lead to an interpretation by state courts. As with all ABA formal opinions, the guidance is nonbinding.
Barbara Gillers, a New York attorney who chairs the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, did not respond to a request for comment.
Some states, including Florida and Virginia, have already instituted rules governing clients and lateral moves. In Florida, for example, departing attorneys may not unilaterally contact firm clients to notify them of the departure unless the lawyer has attempted to negotiate joint communication to clients.
Veteran Florida recruiter Joe Ankus applauded the ABA for stepping in and providing guidance on a process he describes as "cloak and dagger," where departure clauses in partner agreements are often ignored and both the firm and attorneys jockey to retain a client behind the scenes.
"Lawyers leave law firms for a lot of reasons and this rule is trying to provide some safety bumpers for lawyers to leave law firms ethically," Ankus said.
But given the animosity that often emerges from a departure and the economic stakes involved in an increasingly competitive client market, Ankus doesn't expect that the rules, even if adopted by all state bars, will make the process any more congenial.
"The ABA did their best to try to reconcile the unpleasant economic effects between the departing lawyer and the firm," he said, noting that it reads well on paper. "But I'm telling you that in the field … it can get a little ugly."
The opinion also provided guidance on the obligations a firm and the departing attorney have in transitioning.
- The firm and attorney must coordinate an "orderly and timely" transition of files as directed by the client, the return of firm property and notification to other firm attorneys and staff.
- Firms may require that departing attorneys notify firm management at the same time they notify clients, firm employees or "others."
- Firm management should develop policies that protect the confidentiality of client information, the exception being that a departing lawyer can retain names and contact information for a conflict analysis.
- Firms should not continue to represent a client if the departing attorney is the only lawyer at the firm with the specific expertise needed to service that client, unless the firm can retain other lawyers with similar expertise.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllActions Speak Louder Than Words: Law Firms Shrink From 'Performative' Statements
6 minute readNorton Rose Lawyers Accused of Accessing Confidential Material in Internal IT Probe
3 minute read'It's Not About Speed': Forging Strong Legal Department-Law Firm Relationships Starts With Humility, Trust
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250