Why more failing law firms are choosing a death of dissolution rather than insolvency
As Clydes takes an 80-strong team from now-defunct US law firm Sedgwick, more failing firms are breaking up to avoid a costly bankruptcy
January 04, 2018 at 05:44 AM
6 minute read
The end has come for Sedgwick, which announced in November its plans to dissolve at the end of 2017, but if all goes according to plan, the firm will not head into bankruptcy court.
Instead, Clyde & Co has agreed to hire a number of Sedgwick lawyers and staff members post-dissolution, while other teams have joined firms such as Kennedys, DAC Beachcroft, Duane Morris and Steptoe & Johnson.
Plenty of former high-flying firms have collapsed into bankruptcy, from Thelen and Howrey to Heller Ehrman and Dewey & LeBoeuf. Yet in the half-decade since Dewey's spectacular demise, other struggling firms, among them Bingham McCutchen, Dickstein Shapiro and WolfBlock, managed to avoid bankruptcy as they wound down, in part by striking deals, like Sedgwick's, in which large groups of lawyers moved to a single new firm.
Part of the reason for law firms to choose a death of dissolution rather than insolvency stems from the experiences of firms that did go bankrupt, according to lawyers who have worked on law firm insolvencies.
"My advice is stay out of bankruptcy at all costs," says Blank Rome partner Leslie Corwin. He crafted winddown plans for Philadelphia-based firm WolfBlock, which avoided bankruptcy, and for Heller Ehrman, whose bankruptcy case started in 2008 and is still ongoing. (Corwin's current firm, Blank Rome, absorbed about 100 lawyers from Dickstein Shapiro in February 2016, a move that helped keep the latter firm out of bankruptcy as it dissolved.)
"Nobody who's been through a law firm bankruptcy has a good rosy feeling about it," says Latham & Watkins partner Peter Gilhuly, who has worked on a number of law firm dissolutions, including those of Howrey, Thelen, and Brobeck Phleger & Harrison.
Among other lessons learned: formal bankruptcy filings by law firms have set off protracted wind-down processes that mean lots of administrative fees spent on lawyers, accountants and other professional services. The bankruptcy of San Francisco-based Brobeck offers a sobering example. Brobeck's case, which began in 2003, stretched until earlier this year. A final report filed in May by Brobeck's bankruptcy trustee indicates that the case racked up more than $19m in administrative expenses.
Firm bankruptcies also have tended to give rise to lengthy and costly clawback litigation, in which the bankrupt firms' estates try to recover fees from lawyers who take ongoing matters with them to a new firm. Clawback cases have, in turn, led some individual partners to declare personal bankruptcy after their firms went bust.
If a dissolution plan is well run and well thought out, it's going to cost partners a lot less than a bankruptcy will
A group composed of hundreds of former Dewey partners, for example, shelled out $71.5m in exchange for protection from clawback litigation. At least three former Dewey partners who were not part of that settlement group later filed for personal bankruptcy after they were hit with clawback suits; the firm's bankruptcy trustee took the position in court that Dewey was effectively insolvent, starting in 2009, and that partners' pay between that point and whenever they left the firm could be recouped.
According to lawyers that have experience with law firm dissolution, avoiding a bankruptcy proceeding can make it easier to collect on outstanding bills from clients, and it helps insulate the fate of a dissolving firm from outside parties, keeping the winding-down process in control of the firm's management and its legal and financial advisers.
What's different in some of the recent cases, these lawyers add, is that the dissolving firms have managed to successfully line up deals that provided a landing spot for many of their lawyers, while crafting plans to satisfy the firm's creditors and landlords enough to dissuade them from forcing an involuntary bankruptcy.
Keeping bankruptcy at bay typically requires the crafting of a careful dissolution plan, says Corwin. He suggests that a struggling firm hire a legal team that can help reach deals with creditors outside of court. "You want to get someone like me to write up a plan of dissolution that keeps you out of bankruptcy," says Corwin. "If it's a plan that's well run and well thought out, it's going to cost partners a lot less than a bankruptcy situation will."
Aside from benefiting partners, who often already stand to lose some or all of their capital contributions in their firm if it goes bust, a dissolution plan offers a possible upside for creditors, according to Gilhuly. Creditors in insolvency situations have grown more sophisticated in recent years, he says, and they can often anticipate how much of their investment they are likely to recover from a defunct business in a bankruptcy proceeding. If they can reach a similar outcome while staying out of court, all the better.
"There's a lot more sophistication to avoid those kinds of costs," says Gilhuly. "The trend in the law firm insolvency is mirroring or tracking the trend in the non-law firm insolvency world."
Also in the mix is a possible change in US legal precedent that could affect the appeal of clawback litigation for law firm bankruptcy trustees. A California appeals court ruling from 1984, Jewel v Boxer, has long held significant sway over those types of lawsuits based on what's known as the "unfinished business" doctrine. The doctrine, as applied in Jewel, holds that a defunct law firm's accounts receivable - bills for ongoing matters - are an asset of the defunct firm.
The ruling effectively gave a green light for bankruptcy trustees to try to claw back fees from matters that lawyers started while still at a now-insolvent firm, even if the lawyers brought those matters to a new firm and completed most of the work there. The California Supreme Court, however, is currently reviewing that precedent in connection with appeals in the ongoing Howrey and Heller Ehrman bankruptcies.
It remains to be seen how the court will rule; the court heard arguments in the case on 7 December, but it has yet to issue a decision.
If the unfinished business doctrine disappears as a result of the eventual ruling, that might make a law firm's bankruptcy even less fruitful for creditors, and it would give a bankruptcy trustee fewer assets to recover in a clawback case, says Gilhuly. That, in turn, could increase the chances that struggling law firms in the future can avoid bankruptcy court.
"If the ongoing matters are not the property of the law firms," Gilhuly says, "that takes away one huge incentive to file."
- Don't miss your chance to secure your place at the Global Independent Law Firms Forum 2018 this April – early bird rates are now available.
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 AllTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for Hard-Line Approach to Region
BCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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