You are here: / / THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF...
, ,

THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF CONTINGENCY FEES FOR CASES RETAINED BY AN ATTORNEY WHO LEAVES THE FIRM, DID NOT VIOLATE ETHICS RULES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Professional Employee Agreement (Agreement), which provided for sharing contingency fees for cases retained by an attorney leaving the firm, did not violate ethics rules and should have been enforced:

… [T]he Agreement did not violate rule 1.5 (g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) inasmuch as that rule “does not prohibit payment to a lawyer formerly associated in a law firm pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.5 [h] … ) . Here, the Agreement at issue is not a fee-splitting agreement under Rule 1.5 (g) but, rather, an employment or separation agreement under Rule 1.5 (h). Such employment or separation agreements “should be construed, wherever possible, in favor of [their] legality” … and where, as here, they are clear and unambiguous on their face, they must be ” ‘enforced according to the plain meaning of [their] terms’ ” … .

… [T]he Agreement did not violate rule 5.6 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0 … ). Although the Agreement did have some financial disincentives for respondents to continue working on the cases that were transferred from petitioner, “agreements involving financial disincentives are not per se illegal”  … [W]e conclude that the terms of the Agreement relating to the division of contingency fee awards did not have the effect of “improperly deter[ring] competition” … . Matter of Mattar v Hall, 2021 NY Slip Op 06477, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS DEEMED INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED PREJUDICIAL REMARKS MADE TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS (TO THE EFFECT “I CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT BECAUSE I AM NO LONGER A DEFENSE ATTORNEY”), AND FOR AGREEING TO THE JUDGE’S REQUEST TO HAVE THE TWO SIDES ALTERNATE GOING FIRST IN EXERCISING PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES (IN VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW) (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A NEIGHBOR FOR TRESPASS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW; THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
TITLE VESTS IN THE ADVERSE POSSESSOR AFTER TEN YEARS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR COURT ACTION, CONDUCT OF THE ADVERSE POSSESSOR TRUMPS THE POSSESSOR’S KNOWLEDGE OF A SURVEY SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENT.
WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
BANK WHICH PURPORTEDLY ACCELERATED THE DEBT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO DO SO, PLAINTIFF BANK ENTITLED ONLY TO THE UNPAID INSTALLMENTS WHICH ACCRUED DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR AN UPWARD MODIFICATION OF FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN FATHER’S EMPLOYMENT STATUS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, BUT THE MODIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE RETROACTIVE TO THE DATE OF EMPLOYMENT, NOT THE DATE OF THE PETITION (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY A DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.
Written Notice of Defect Under Housing Merchant Implied Warranty Waived by Undertaking Repair

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ARGUABLY RAISED A QUESTION... PLAINTIFF’S TITLE IX AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION, BASED ON ALLEGATIONS...