Miles & Stockbridge Vows Appeal After Verdict for Ex-Partner
Donald English won a $231,000 verdict against his Baltimore-based firm, in the latest case to raise issues of ownership vs. worker protections in a law firm employment dispute.
June 22, 2018 at 06:11 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A jury verdict last week against a large regional Baltimore-based firm, Miles & Stockbridge, highlighted a recurring question in employment disputes involving law firms: Should partners be considered workers or owners under employee protection laws?
A jury in Baltimore City Circuit Court awarded $231,000 to plaintiff Donald English, now a principal at Jackson Lewis, for claims against Miles & Stockbridge under a Maryland wage law and for breach of contract. The law firm could be liable for much more: English's attorneys intend to seek at least $500,000 in attorney fees and expenses in light of the verdict.
Miles & Stockbridge said it intends to appeal the verdict.
English practiced at Miles & Stockbridge for more than 13 years, including three as an equity principal. At the firm—an Am Law 200 firm with 216 lawyers that generated $116.5 million in revenue last year—he was to make $223,000 in 2017, including salary, bonus and other payments.
After he gave notice last year that he was leaving to join Jackson Lewis, English expected a full return of his capital contributions to the firm, totaling about $68,000.
Instead, he received far less, when the firm determined that money was “advanced” or “loaned” to him between January and June 30, 2017, and it should be recouped from his capital account. According to his court papers, the firm told him the $107,866.51 in salary he was promised, earned and was paid in the first half of 2017 had been retroactively reduced to $49,386.
Ultimately the firm sent English a check for $9,519, reflecting his capital minus the setbacks.
English filed his lawsuit in August, asking for at least $68,682.
According to its court papers, Miles & Stockbridge argued English was a stockholder and so part owner of the firm, and like other stockholders, his compensation was calculated based on his share of the firm's profits. To help its stockholders during the year, Miles said it “advances” to its stockholders draws against their share of the firm's projected profits.
The firm argued that, at the time of his resignation, English's draws against his compensation exceeded his share of the firm's earnings by about $58,000.
But English asserted he ought to have been paid for work he performed. He argued that documentation produced during discovery demonstrated he was paid a salary and bonuses, rather than a percentage of profits. He argued the firm's clawback of his salary violated the Maryland wage payment and collection law, which requires employers to pay employees their wages by their regular pay period and prohibits them from making unauthorized deductions from wages.
At trial earlier this month, seven former Miles principals testified for English, plaintiffs attorney Tonya Baña said, including some who had complained about the firm's reduced payments to outgoing partners.
Baña said four of the seven witnesses are now practicing at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough after leaving Miles early this year.
After deliberating for a couple of hours, the jury on June 13 awarded English the amount he was seeking on the wage claim, trebled under the wage law, and an additional $25,000 for the breach of contract claim, according to Baña. English's lead counsel at trial was solo practitioner Kenneth Ravenell as well as co-counsel Baña, also a solo practitioner.
Baña said she anticipates submitting a fee petition for at least a half a million dollars, in light of her repeated attempts to settle the case before and during the litigation, and she intends to appeal the pretrial dismissal of English's fraud and conversion claims. “They are engaging in a scheme to steal from their principals,” she said.
|'Huge Vindication'
She said the case raises an issue of whether a law firm—Miles & Stockbridge is a professional corporation—can “pretend” its employees are partners in a true partnership for wages and tax purposes.
“They're picking and choosing wither they're going to treat you as an employee or partner,” Baña said, adding she imagines other law firms, maybe regional firms just inside and outside the Am Law 200, “are using the ambiguities [between employee and partner]” to take advantage of those not familiar with employment and wage laws.
The question of whether law firm partners should be treated as employees under the law has arisen in high-profile law firm discrimination cases, including those cases against Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose. In both cases, the firms have maintained the plaintiffs were partial owners of their law firms and don't qualify for certain employment protections.
Still, Baña said the trial did not focus on whether English was a partner or employee, and Miles & Stockbridge did not dispute he was an employee for purposes of Maryland wage law. The material issue of the case, she said, was what compensation they had promised English for the work he had performed.
The verdict “is a huge vindication of my client,” she said.
Despite her satisfaction with the verdict, Baña noted she was formerly an associate at Miles & Stockbridge for three years before a series of career moves, including serving as an associate at Jones Day for several years, and she said she still has great affection for some lawyers there.
In an interview, English, a defense-side employment lawyer, said he knew bringing the case could affect his practice. But he said he now has a new appreciation for what it means to be a litigant and that has improved his advocacy skills. “It made me a better lawyer,” he said.
In a statement, Miles & Stockbridge, represented by Gallagher Evelius & Jones, said it was pleased the court dismissed English's fraud claim before trial. It added: “The simple fact is that Mr. English claimed more compensation than he was due under the terms of the agreements he signed when he became a stockholder and owner of Miles & Stockbridge. His obligations were fully outlined in his agreements with the firm and consistent with the law and long-standing practices for the firm's owners and compensation practices in the profession.”
It also addressed the Nelson Mullins witnesses at trial. “The firm will resolve any outstanding issues with those principals in the time and manner provided for in their employment and shareholder agreements,” the firm said.
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 AllPlaintiffs Lawyer Alleges Pierce Bainbridge Kept Settlement Funds to Fuel Video Game Suits
4 minute readTrending Stories
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