DC Court Shoots Down Bankrupt Howrey's 'Unfinished Business' Claims
"A law firm does not have a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' to hourly billed client matters because it is the clients who retain the right to control the representation," Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby wrote.
February 14, 2020 at 05:37 PM
4 minute read
Law firms have no property interest in hourly billed client matters, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday, undercutting the "unfinished business" claims of bankrupt Am Law 100 firm Howrey.
While Howrey closed its doors in 2011, the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel has major implications for law firms that have picked up groups of lawyers—and their clients—when other law firms failed or dissolved.
The judge rejected the claims made by Allan Diamond, the managing partner of Diamond McCarthy who is the Chapter 7 trustee overseeing the estate of Howrey, in a case that caught the attention of major national and international law firms and the American Bar Association. Diamond had argued that the estate was owed money from law firms including Jones Day, which hired 22 former Howrey partners who brought with them client matters that originated at Howrey.
Jones Day was one of several law firms Diamond sued as Howrey's trustee. The firm took the lead in opposing the arguments by Diamond, and has done the same in some similar cases around the country "on principle," said Shay Dvoretzky, a Jones Day partner who argued the case before the D.C. court.
"They don't have the right to collect work they didn't perform," Dvoretzky said.
In an issue of first impression, the D.C. court found that this property interest rested with the clients. When partners move between firms, it's up to the clients to decide whether to go with them, the court found. Agreeing to Diamond's argument would not only affect how clients choose their representation, but how lawyers could move from firm to firm, the court added.
"A law firm does not have a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' to hourly-billed client matters because it is the clients who retain the right to control the representation," Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby wrote for the panel. "A law firm's belief that it will continue working on such hourly-billed client matters into the future constitutes no more than an 'abstract need' or 'unilateral expectation.'"
As a result, former partners have no duty to remit profits they earned at their new firms back to their prior ones, the D.C. court found.
The D.C. Court of Appeals' finding came in the answer of a certified question posed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has stayed the case proceedings for years. Oral arguments were held before the D.C. court in December 2018. A copy of the D.C. court's finding was filed with the Ninth Circuit on Thursday.
Dvoretzky said the Ninth Circuit reached out to the D.C. court for help because Howrey was founded there.
This is the third time a state high court has rejected the idea that a partner's former firm is owed money from the "unfinished business" that was brought to a new firm. The New York Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court made similar findings in July 2014 and March 2018 in the bankruptcies of Thelen and Coudert Brothers, and Heller Ehrman, respectively.
Dvoretzky said Jones Day participated in all three cases. "We thought it was important to fight these cases as a matter of principle," he said.
The case—and Diamond's arguments—attracted a lot of attention in the legal community. Jones Day was joined in its brief and in arguments by Hogan Lovells; Kasowitz Benson Torres; Neal Gerber & Eisenberg; Perkins Coie; Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman; Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton; and Seyfarth Shaw. Those firms were represented by their own attorneys.
A total of 25 national and international law firms, as well as the ABA, the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers and the D.C. Bar Association filed amicus briefs opposing Howrey's arguments.
|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 All'Ready to Respond': Wilmer's Robert Kimmitt and Covington's Stephen Rademaker Worked to Free U.S. Journalists
3 minute readNewly Formed DEI Practices Expect Heightened Demand During Trump Administration
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Man Hits Cow in Case That Tests 'Unrealistic Delivery Times'
- 2DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
- 3Environmental Law in Trump’s Second Term
- 4Lock-Maker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
- 5Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
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