From Wolf Block to Sedgwick: Law Firm Dissolutions Pose Challenges for GCs
“It's in the best case somewhat disruptive and in the worst case extraordinarily disruptive to the lawyers and their clients,” said one consultant.
October 04, 2018 at 02:23 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Sedgwick's bankruptcy has underscored some of the collateral consequences of a law firm's dissolution, especially for general counsel who suddenly have to deal with their outside legal team being scattered to the four winds.
“It's in the best case somewhat disruptive and in the worst case extraordinarily disruptive to the lawyers and their clients,” said Roger Hayse, a Dallas-based consultant at Hayse LLC. Law firms turn to Hayse and his firm when they're facing a difficult transition, such as dissolution, which has been happening a lot in recent years.
When lawyers leave dying firms they generally take their books of business with them. But, under ethics rules, they can't tell their clients anything about what's happening until they've resigned. Then they can ask the client to sign a transfer letter.
Once the letter is in hand, the old firm is required to send over the lawyer's files, which can take time. Still, it's a smoother transition than you might see in other professions bound by restrictive covenants.
After learning that their lawyers are leaving a firm, in-house clients typically want to know if the new firm will have the same capacities, if the entire team is relocating together and if the billing rate is going to change, according to Leslie Corwin, managing partner of the New York office of Eisner.
If the GC likes the outside counsel's answers, it's highly likely that the relationship will remain intact, Corwin said. When Wolf Block was dissolving, the firm hired Corwin, then a partner at Greenberg Traurig, to help relocate lawyers and liquidate assets.
“My sense is the legal profession is such that people hire lawyers, not law firms,” Corwin said. “If I'm your guy, you're going to go with me, short of there's some conflict at my new firm.”
Corwin is right, assuming that the outside counsel in question was handling complex matters rather than low-risk commodity work, which can easily go to another firm or service provider, said Ben Heineman, former GC and senior vice president for General Electric Co.
“If it's a superstar lawyer who can put together a team at the new firm, that's really what matters,” he added.
Ideally, the GC's entire team of outside lawyers would leave the defunct firm and head across the street together to join another firm, where they'd get back to business as usual. But that doesn't always happen.
Health care services and supply company Baxter International Inc. had been using Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison for about a decade as its national coordinating counsel for breast implant litigation involving thousands of cases in the U.S. and internationally when the firm went belly up in 2003.
“While you're going through with it it's hellish,” said Marla Persky who was GC for Baxter at the time.
Persky followed her chief litigation counsel, Debra Pole, from Brobeck to Sidley Austin. But Pole didn't take her entire team of litigators with her, which meant some of the members of Baxter's new team were 10 years late to the party and had to get up to speed in a hurry.
“Everything worked out fine, but it was extremely disruptive,” Perksy said. She added that GCs also have to alert their insurers when they need to switch firms mid-litigation and make sure that the insurer is on board with the decision.
Another potential complication arises when firms break up and legal teams go their separate ways, because there can be “strong competition” between the outside lawyers who once handled a particular client relationship once their old law firm is no more.
Ultimately, it's the client who determines the winner of the tug-of-war. Sometimes the GC sends all the work to one of the new firms. Other times, the GC decides to split up the work between the lawyers at different firms.
“In the end, the client decides where they want their work done,” Hayse said.
In bankruptcy situations, creditors can make the transition more difficult for outside counsel and their clients, which is “what we're seeing in Sedgwick,” Hayes added, referring to clawback claims that could be filed against the firm's former partners.
“Dealing with all that is disruptive to the attorney's life,” he said.
Read more:
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 AllCourting Growth, Pennsylvania Law Firms Expanded to Farthest Corners of the Country
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Considering the Implications of the 2024 Presidential Election for Jurors in White Collar Cases
- 22024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
- 3What We Heard From Litigation Leaders in 2024
- 4Akin and Simpson Create New Practice Groups With Integrated Teams
- 5Thursday Newspaper
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