Defecting Lawyers Held Not Liable for Former Firm's Broken Office Lease
The Appellate Division said the departing lawyers took no files, computers or other property when they left their former firm and therefore could not be considered a successor to that firm.
April 12, 2019 at 03:50 PM
4 minute read
Photo: planet5D LLC/Shutterstock.com
A group of lawyers who left a Pennsylvania firm to start their own practice are not liable for their former firm's broken lease for New Jersey office space, an appeals court has ruled.
The Appellate Division said a motion judge correctly granted summary judgment to the departing lawyers because they took no files, computers or other property when they left their former firm and therefore could not be considered a successor to that firm. In addition, the departing lawyers' former firm continued to operate and to pay rent for a time after the departures, and those who left never agreed to assume the former firm's debt, the appeals court ruled. The judge below correctly found no evidence to support the landlord's assertion that the departing lawyers fraudulently transferred the old firm's assets to their new firm, the appeals court said.
The dispute concerns a 65-month lease for office space in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, that was signed in March 2011 by Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Horst of Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. The firm's chief operating officer signed the lease, while the firm partners did not sign it or execute personal guarantees. In May 2012 the firm changed its name to Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Hamilton.
In August 2014, name partners Daniel de Luca and Kenneth Levine of the firm's insurance subrogation practice resigned along with five other lawyers to form a new firm, de Luca Levine. After their departure, Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Hamilton changed its name to Nelson, Brown, Hamilton & Krekstein. Clients affected by the departure were given the choice of remaining with Nelson Brown, transferring to de Luca Levine, or taking their business elsewhere. Nelson Brown sued de Luca Levine to recover fees from contingency cases, and the parties reached a confidential settlement.
In September 2014, with two years left on its lease, Nelson Brown advised the landlord for the Cherry Hill office, Berk and Berk at Cherry Tree, that a number of attorneys and clients had left the firm and that they would be unable to pay the rent. The firm ceased operations in 2015.
In August 2016, Berk and Berk sued de Luca, Levine, their firm, and various incarnations of Nelson Brown. In September 2017, Superior Court Judge Steven Polansky of Camden County granted summary judgment to de Luca, Levine and their firm. Landlord Berk and Berk appealed.
At the Appellate Division, Judges Marie Simonelli, Mary Gibbons Whipple and Patrick DeAlmeida said the record supports the conclusion that de Luca Levine and its principals are not successors to Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Hamilton or Nelson Brown. When they left, there was no consolidation or merger, and de Luca Levine did not expressly or implicitly agree to assume the former firm's debt. In addition, no evidence was presented to suggest de Luca and Levine intended to assume the lease, the court said.
The landlord argued that de Luca Levine fraudulently transferred assets, including files and clients, and characterized those items as “good will,” claiming that the principles of equitable distribution, relevant in divorce cases, should apply. But the appeals court failed to see any parallel between divorce and the present situation. “Although 'good will' may be subject to equitable distribution in limited divorce cases, we reject the suggestion good will is a transferred asset for the purposes of imposing liability to third parties upon lawyers who leave a firm,” the appeals court said.
The appeals court also rejected the plaintiff's conclusion that the assets of Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Hamilton were transferred to de Luca Levine, fraudulently or otherwise.
“A group of attorneys left the firm with the intention to start another firm. A law firm does not own its clients or cases and cannot transfer a client to another firm against a client's consent,” the panel said.
Nelson, Levine, de Luca & Horst started 2014 with approximately 75 lawyers. But early in the year, 14 attorneys focusing on data breach, cyber law and security practices left the firm to start Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith's Berwyn office. The departures of de Luca and Levine came about six months later.
By June 2015, the firm's last remaining name partner, Michael Nelson, joined Sutherland Asbill & Brennan along with four other former attorneys from the firm.
Raymond Mack of deLuca Levine, who represented his firm and its named partners at the Appellate Division, did not return a call about the case. Nor did Verona, New Jersey, solo practitioner Robert Rich, who represented landlord Berk and Berk.
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 All![Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Says NJ Supreme Court Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Says NJ Supreme Court](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/njlawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/415/2023/08/2023-08-3-church_ALM_melanie-bell.jpg)
Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Says NJ Supreme Court
5 minute read![Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right? Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/f7/29/5f015827423e942168f82a1170af/dna-767x633.jpg)
Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?
Trending Stories
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