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
A SHOOTER WEARING BODY ARMOR OPENED FIRE AT A BUFFALO GROCERY STORE KILLING TEN AND INJURING MANY OTHERS; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE BODY ARMOR ALLOWED THE SHOOTER TO KILL THE SECURITY GUARD WHICH LEFT THE SHOPPERS UNPROTECTED; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BODY ARMOR AND TWO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Not Given Adequate Time to Decide Whether to Testify Before the Grand Jury—Conviction Reversed
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO GUARD RAILS ON THE SCAFFOLD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIE OFF HIS HARNESS AND LANYARD, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY FROM A FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Provision in Separation Agreement Which Called for Employment of the Wife by the Husband Deemed an Employment Contract Breached When Wife Opened a Competing Business
WHETHER MOTHER VALIDLY WAIVED HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS APPEALABLE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS CONTESTED BEFORE MOTHER DEFAULTED BY FAILING TO APPEAR, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MOTHER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HERSELF WAS GRANTED; MOTHER WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS SHE WAS GIVING UP (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE AIR BAG UNEXPECTEDLY DEPLOYED, CAUSING INJURY; DEFENDANT FORD’S EXPERT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CAUSE OF THE DEPLOYMENT WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PRODUCT DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT).
A JURY’S FAILURE TO RENDER A VERDICT ON A COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL ON THAT COUNT 4TH DEPT.

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...