Judge: Nixon Peabody did not 'steal' Taylor Wessing partners
Taylor Wessing has lost its battle to stop Nixon Peabody hiring 12 partners after a trial judge ruled the US firm violated no law despite agreeing to a two-year moratorium on recruiting from Taylor Wessing in the wake of failed merger talks, reports The American Lawyer. The ruling by Judge Kenneth Fisher calls into question the kind of non-compete agreements that make merger talks between firms possible, says Dreier name partner Marc Dreier, who represented Taylor Wessing in litigation stemming from those failed talks.Nixon management praised the ruling.
September 17, 2008 at 06:43 AM
3 minute read
Taylor Wessing has lost its battle to stop Nixon Peabody hiring 12 partners after a trial judge ruled the US firm violated no law despite agreeing to a two-year moratorium on recruiting from Taylor Wessing in the wake of failed merger talks, reports The American Lawyer.
The ruling by Judge Kenneth Fisher calls into question the kind of non-compete agreements that make merger talks between firms possible, says Dreier name partner Marc Dreier, who represented Taylor Wessing in litigation stemming from those failed talks.
Nixon management praised the ruling.
"From the start, we were convinced these claims should never have been filed," Richard Langan, the firm's managing partner, said in a statement. "Nixon Peabody looks forward to welcoming a team of dynamic partners from Taylor Wessing France to join our firm."
As The Am Law Daily has reported, Nixon and Taylor Wessing's Paris office struck an initial agreement in July 2007 over merger discussions. Talks, though, collapsed in November, when Taylor equity partners concluded they were dissatisfied with Nixon's financial offer and Taylor non-equity partners rebelled at the thought of working under the American billable hours system.
Taylor Wessing's larger UK and German practices also pressed the Paris office to abandon the talks.
The dispute turned on the actions of Arnaud de Senilhes, managing partner of Taylor's Paris office, who continued talks with Nixon and eventually convinced a dozen non-equity partners to come with him. A fellow equity partner learned of de Senilhes' talks when he found pages from a PowerPoint presentation intended for Nixon management left sitting on a Taylor Wessing printer.
Taylor Wessing sued in an upstate New York court, claiming Nixon breached the non-compete agreement. The European firm sought $5m (£2.8m) and an injunction blocking the hirings. Nixon counter-sued, claiming Taylor Wessing was unfairly restricting the freedom of its partners to change jobs.
Judge Fisher ruled for Nixon on 11 September, saying, in essence, the non-compete agreement was unenforceable under New York law. Fisher compared the agreements to other banned "restrictive covenants," including contract clauses, long since deemed illegal, that prevented partners from taking associates with them when they left one firm for another.
Taylor Wessing managing partner Michael Frawley told Legal Week: "We are obviously surprised by the judge's findings and we are in the process of reviewing the judgment for possible appeal, on the advice of our lawyer in New York.
"What is disappointing is that Nixon Peabody agreed to this restriction, only for them to assert subsequently that the restriction was always unenforceable."
The decision surprised Ward Bower of the consulting firm Altman Weil. He says such non-compete agreements are common between firms in merger talks -and that both sides usually honor them.
Fisher mostly limited his analysis to New York law, so the impact of the ruling remains unclear. According to Dreier, "no firm will feel comfortable" entering into merger talks without a non-compete agreement.
Frawley also pledged that Taylor Wessing would rebuild its practice in France despite the recent departures. He said: " We are in the process of rebuilding Taylor Wessing France and, with eight partners and around 30 fee earners, it remains a sizeable force in the French legal market."
The Am Law Daily is the website of The American Lawyer, Legal Week's US sister title.
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
© 2025 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 AllFreshfields Name Change Becomes Official as Company with Similar Name Dissolves
2 minute readLeaders at Top French Firms Anticipate Strong M&A Market in 2025 Despite Uncertainty
6 minute readEU Parliament Gives Blessing to New EU Competition Chief Ribera Rodríguez
2 minute readSimpson Thacher Becomes Second Firm to Launch in Luxembourg in 2 Days With A&O Shearman Hires
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lavish 'Lies' Led to Investors Being Fleeced in Nine-Figure International Crypto Scam
- 2AstraZeneca Files Flurry of Lawsuits to Protect Cancer Treatment Drug
- 3American Airlines Legal Chief Departs for Warner Bros. Discovery
- 4New Montgomery Bar President Aims to Boost Lawyer Referral Service
- 5Deadline Extended for Southeastern Legal Awards
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