Lawyer Retirement and Future Payouts: Ethical Complexities and Gray Areas
For New York lawyers, "retirement" in the traditional sense of exiting the work force may not be the only option. New York has an intricate maze of rules on retirement requiring careful review and understanding.
June 21, 2021 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
In New York, lawyer retirement is remarkably complex. Variations of "retire" are used in different contexts with distinct meanings and disparate outcomes. It is critically important to understand the labyrinth of potentially applicable ethics rules that intertwine with certain court rules on retirement: Rule 1.17 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules) on the sale of a geographically-defined law practice and the exemption contained in section (b) of Rule 5.6 for sales of practice under Rule 1.17 from the prohibitions contained in section (a) of Rule 5.6; Rule 1.5(g) on the division of legal fees by lawyers not associated in the same law firm; and Rule 1.5(h)'s exception to Rule 1.5(g) for payment to a lawyer formerly associated in a law firm pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement.
Adding to the complication is §118.1(g) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, containing requirements for the filing of biennial registration statements, which include a filing status that exempts the "retired" attorney from the biennial fees and requirements relating to continuing legal education. For purposes of §118.1(g), "practice of law" is described as "the giving of legal advice or counsel to, or providing legal representation for, a particular body or individual in a particular situation in either the public or private sector …."
This content has been archived.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 AllTortious Interference With a Contract; Retaliatory Eviction Defense; Illegal Lockout: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute readSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Continues Finance Practice Build
- 2Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
- 3'We Neither Like Nor Dislike the Fifth Circuit'
- 4Local Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
- 5Senior Associates' Billing Rates See The Biggest Jump
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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