Breaking Up a Partnership Doesn't Have to Be Hard
When law partners decide to establish their own new practices, the breakup can be challenging, but it can also be amicable.
May 23, 2018 at 03:31 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Shutterstock
When law partnerships end, breaking up is always challenging: finding new space, building a new website and planning your SEO. The breakup can be acrimonious, or worse, lead to expensive and time-consuming litigation. But it doesn't have to be that way.
My former law partner of 16 years and I are living proof. Amid our recent decision to go our own ways, we followed valuable lessons that can assist others who choose to split up.
The first of these is that an office breakup is similar to the end of a marriage. And just as in personal matters, listening, diplomacy and flexibility can be the difference between a messy split and a smooth and cordial separation. Be fair. No, be more than fair. We checked our trial lawyer egos at the door. Each of us gave the other things we knew were important to the other.
This lesson goes back to the very beginning of a business relationship. Most management experts believe a law firm, or any other partnership, must have a well-defined written partnership agreement. The agreement should detail what happens if one or more partners decide to leave. That's the advice I give my clients.
Ironically, that's not what my law partner and I did when we joined forces. Rather than follow conventional wisdom, we operated on a handshake agreement rooted in my fifth-generation Texas hubris. The handshake approach works only when you know your partner's character and heart. If you go the handshake route, be sure you have experience with and absolute trust in your law partner.
Our handshake agreement meant that by the time we reached a decision to dissolve our firm we had no established process on how to dissolve the firm. Legally we were bound, of course, by the default provisions of the Texas Business Organizations Code. As a result of our unique business partnership, we needed to discuss an array of issues that included everything from how to transition attorneys and administrative staff to who would retain our firm's website, phone numbers and office space.
Our collaborative work also included how to inform clients. Rather than let clients hear about our decision through dueling separate announcements, we chose to talk about it publicly and together. Our public disclosure included placing a joint announcement in the Dallas Bar Association's Headnotes. In short, we were able to work together – even at the end – in a friendly, fair and orderly manner.
That was certainly not the case in a high profile law firm split in 2017 involving New York's Cellino & Barnes. In that train wreck, Above The Law reported that Barnes accused Cellino of poaching the firm's attorneys. He called Cellino's behavior “reprehensible” and claimed that Cellino told firm attorneys that “the 'Cellino' name was 'better' than the 'Barnes' name – analogizing the firm to Harley-Davidson and saying 'no one ever calls their motorcycle a Davidson.'”
I've represented lawyers in more than a dozen law firm breakups, including partners fighting over a $4 million fee. As plenty of Texas partnership lawsuits and trials prove, the consequences of a bitter fight can be economically disastrous for one partner, the other or both. See Gary Cruciani vs. Baron & Budd. ($8.8 million verdict).
The Zeughauser Group recent study of law firm mergers and competition revealed that 84% of law firm leaders in Texas are optimistic about their firms' future. However, the harsh reality is that most partnerships won't last. A recent study by the CMO Council, a global network of executives dedicated to the exchange of business issues, determined that the failure rate for strategic partnerships was 60% or more. Therefore, an optimistic outlook is no guarantee that a partnership will not have to be dissolved sooner than anyone thinks.
While the topic of a possible split is not the cheeriest of things to discuss, it's important to address the dissolution issues early and know how you will dissolve your partnership. Doing so ensures that you and your law partners can be optimistic about your firm's future, and focus on providing excellent counsel to your clients.
Rogge Dunn is partner at Rogge Dunn Group, PC. He can be reached at [email protected].
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 AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 2Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 3Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 4Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
- 5Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
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