On July 1, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals definitively ended the debate concerning whether matters billed on an hourly basis after a law firm’s dissolution are the property of a dissolved law firm subject to a claim that they constitute “unfinished business.” In determining that a law firm’s pending hourly fee matters are not subject to claims of unfinished business, the Court of Appeals not only clarified New York’s Partnership Law but, perhaps having more widespread effect, reiterated New York’s strong public policy in favor of client choice of counsel and lawyer mobility.
The decision is among the most important determinations from the Court of Appeals affecting lawyers, and impacts large and small law firms, law firm partners, and clients. In this month’s column, we analyze the Court of Appeals decision in Geron v. Seyfarth Shaw (In re Thelen)1 and discuss some of the decision’s immediate and long-term implications.
Partnership ‘Property’
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
