Daily Dicta: A Parting Gift from Heller Ehrman
Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe is no more--but the firm will be remembered in part for an important California Supreme Court decision on the property interest of dissolved law firms.
March 06, 2018 at 12:16 PM
6 minute read
Twenty years ago, when I was hired by The Recorder in San Francisco as a cub reporter, my beat included covering Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe. As an institution, it seemed to me as impressive and permanent as the Golden Gate Bridge—for which firm lawyers in the early 1930s arranged financing.
The 118-year-old firm's dissolution in 2008 shocked and saddened me in a way that the fall of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison in 2003 or Howrey in 2011, for example, did not.
The California Supreme Court justices sound like they felt the same way.
“Like 'cloud-capp'd towers,' 'gorgeous palaces,' and perhaps someday even 'the great globe itself,' many arrangements endure for some time but eventually dissolve,” is how the court (quoting The Tempest) kicked off its opinion in a closely-watched case stemming from Heller's bankruptcy.
The key question before the justices: whether a dissolved law firm retains a property interest in legal matters billed on an hourly basis that are in progress at the time of dissolution.
The court's answer—no—is not particularly unexpected, but that doesn't diminish its importance.
It's not an area of rich jurisprudence in California, which boasts 266,716 bar members. “Only twice previously—in the late 19th century—have we addressed the fiduciary duties of a dissolved law firm's former partners regarding the unfinished business at the time of dissolution,” wrote Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar in the unanimous opinion.
Heller's court-appointed liquidation plan administrator, who was responsible for pursuing claims to recover assets for the benefit of Heller's creditors, sued 16 law firms that hired Heller partners post-collapse.
Represented by Diamond McCarthy's Christopher Sullivan, the administrator sought to recover from the shareholders' new firms the profits generated by ongoing hourly fee matters that former Heller partners brought with them to their new homes.
Most of the firms settled, but Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Jones Day; Davis Wright Tremaine; and Foley & Lardner opted to litigate.
The case came down to two competing principles—the client's right to choose counsel versus the unfinished business doctrine, said Blank Rome partner Les Corwin.
Before the decision was issued, I had a chance to talk at length with Corwin, who was retained by Heller in 2008 to write its wind down plan.
“I think the unfinished business doctrine is dead in the water,” he said. “Clients are not merchandise. … Clients have the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time, and for any reason.”
Indeed, the court held that “The limited nature of the interest accorded to the dissolved law firm protects clients' choice of counsel. It allows the clients to choose new law firms unburdened by the reach of the dissolved firm that has been paid in full and discharged.”
Moreover, this places “partners who depart after a firm's dissolution at no disadvantage to those who leave earlier.”
The court continued, “The more fees a former partnership can claim, the less remain available to compensate the people who actually perform the work. Reduced compensation creates incentives that are perverse to the mobility of lawyers, clients' choice for counsel, and stability of law firms.”
For more on the case, see 'Unfinished Business' Claims Zapped by California Supreme Court in Heller Case
|
Quote of the Day:
From The Washington Post, which reported that former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg does not plan to comply with a subpoena from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III:
“I'm not spending 80 hours going over my emails with Roger Stone and Steve Bannon and producing them. Donald Trump won this election on his own. He campaigned his ass off. And there is nobody who hates him more than me.”
|
What I'm Reading
Katyal Begins Defense of New Pa. Congressional Map in Redistricting Fight Before SCOTUS
Hogan Lovells star Neal Katyal has joined Gov. Tom Wolf's efforts to defend Pennsylvania's recently re-drawn congressional districts before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I think this case highlights the difficulty lawyers face when they fail to remember that their client is the corporate entity, not the person on the other end of the phone.”
A trio of towns are trying to keep the local Orthodox Jewish community from constructing religious boundaries called eruvs (which allow observant Jews to do things like push strollers or carry house keys during the Sabbath)—but they require PVC piping or wooden slats to be installed on utility poles.
Plaintiffs lawyers said the biggest hurdle was convincing jurors, who now understand that tobacco and nicotine can lead to addiction and illness, that consumers were once in the dark about these risks.
The high court declined to hear a challenge to the state's decision to hire a private law firm to investigate manufacturers of opioid medications.
State Attorney General Josh Shapiro wants at least $13.5 million for the breach, where at least 13,500 Pennsylvania Uber drivers allegedly had their driver's license information accessed.
Poor baby can't keep his one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album.
Bonus: (From the Desert News) Utah State Bar investigating after topless photo is emailed to members
“We are aware of it and we are horrified,” Matt Page, communications director for the Utah State Bar, said. “Our goal is to get to the bottom of what happened and ensure that it never happens again.”
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 AllShould It Be Left to the Plaintiffs Bar to Enforce Judicial Privacy Laws?
7 minute readA Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
Of Predictive Analytics and Robots: A First-Year Federal Judge's Thoughts on AI
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 2'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 3Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 4These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 5'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
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