Ethics

ABA Formal Opinion 495 - Lawyers Working Remotely (December 16, 2020)

ABA Formal Opinion 489 - Obligations Related to Notice When Lawyers Change Firms (December 4, 2019)

ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-414 - Ethical Obligations When a Lawyer Changes Firms (September 8, 1999)

New York City Bar - Formal Opinion 2023-1: Ethical Obligations of Lawyers and Law Firms Relating to Attorney Departures (June 30, 2023)

The State Bar Of California Standing Committee On Professional Responsibility And Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2020-201: What Ethical Obligations Arise When A Lawyer Departs From Her Law Firm? (February 28, 2020)

Jumping Ship: Ethical Considerations in Lateral Movements (Wayne N. Outten & Cara E. Greene, November 9, 2013)

Insurance

An Attorney’s Guide to Understanding Lawyers’ Professional Liability Insurance

Opinions

Jacobson Holman PLLC v. Marsha Gentner, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No 19-cv-830, February 4, 2021. A provision in a law firm’s operating agreement that financially penalizes departing partners who take any firm clients with them by requiring them to forfeit half of their earned equity interest is unenforceable. The “implied, partial restriction on the practice of law, in the form of imposing a substantial financial penalty for representing clients previously represented by the firm,” violates Rule 5.6(a) of the professional rules of conduct. The court published the decision to ensure that members of the D.C. Bar understand the parameters of the rule, which prohibits agreements, other than agreements for retirement benefits, from restricting “the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship.”

Diamond v. Hogan Lovells US LLP, 9th Cir., No. 15-16326, February 27, 2020. The court held:
(1) hourly-billed client matters are not “property” of the law firm. A client has an almost “unfettered right” to choose or to discharge counsel. Therefore, a law firm has no more than a “unilateral expectation,” rather than a “legitimate claim of entitlement,” to future fees earned from continued work on hourly-billed client matters.

(2) After a partner leaves the law firm (disassociates), the partner owes no continued duty to the former law firm to account for new profits earned on hourly-billed client matters that started at the former firm. A dissociated partner has a limited duty of loyalty to the former firm only “with regard to matters arising and events occurring before the partner’s dissociation.” This limited duty requires a dissociated partner to remit profits earned on work performed prior to the partner’s dissociation, but does not include profits earned from work performed subsequent to the partner’s dissociation.

(3) A dissolved law firm has no interest in profits earned on hourly-billed client matters following dissolution. A dissolved law firm is only entitled to proceeds earned as part of the firm’s “winding up” process, which include acts that preserve partnership rights and property, prosecute and defend actions, settle or transfer partnership business, or distribute assets. “Winding up” does not encompass new business or work done on former client matters after dissolution by former partners. The dissolved partnership can no longer undertake work on these matters after dissolution.

Diamond v. Hogan Lovells US, LLP, D.C. Ct. App., No. 18-SP-0218, February 13, 2020. After a partner leaves the law firm (disassociates), the partner owes no continued duty to the former law firm to account for new profits earned on hourly-billed client matters that started at the former firm.