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
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
© 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 AllNondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readTrending 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