Introduction: In a landmark decision that could have wide-reaching implications for legal firms and their departing attorneys, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against the enforceability of a contract clause demanding a fee from lawyers for each client they take upon leaving a firm. This ruling underscores the delicate balance between a firm’s financial interests and a lawyer’s right to practice.
Background: The case centers around Grant Bursek, a former associate at Denver’s Johnson Family Law, known as Modern Family Law. Upon his departure, along with 18 clients, Bursek faced a demand from his former firm to pay $18,936, calculated at $1,052 per client, as stipulated in his employment contract.
The Ruling: The Colorado Supreme Court deemed this contract provision in violation of a Colorado ethics rule. This rule specifically prohibits employment and partnership agreements from restricting a lawyer’s right to practice post-departure. The court opined that while reimbursement of specific client costs might be permissible under certain circumstances, imposing a blanket fee for continuing to represent clients who choose to follow the departing attorney is not allowed.
Implications: This decision puts into perspective the ongoing debate over the ethics of financial penalties imposed on lawyers when they leave a firm. The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling aligns with the majority view in states with similar ethics rules, which consider any financial burden on departing attorneys a violation of these rules. In contrast, the minority view, also acknowledged by the Colorado Court, calls for a balance between client choice, attorney autonomy, and a firm’s financial stability, requiring a reasonableness inquiry.
Broader Context: The type of fee imposed on Bursek was criticized for forcing attorneys to weigh the financial value of retaining each client, potentially leading to a bias towards high-fee cases and against less lucrative ones. The court did note, however, that reimbursement could be justified in scenarios where a firm incurs specific costs, like advancing litigation expenses or attracting particular clients.
Conclusion: The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in Bursek’s case sets a precedent that emphasizes the ethical considerations in lawyer employment agreements, particularly concerning client transitions. It highlights the importance of balancing a law firm’s financial interests with the fundamental rights of lawyers to practice freely and the clients’ right to choose their legal representation. This decision is a significant step in defining the boundaries of financial agreements within legal firms and their departing attorneys.
Additional Resources
- How to Post Bail at Kittitas County Jail: A Comprehensive Guide This article provides a step-by-step guide for posting bail at Kittitas County Jail, detailing the types of bail, the process for posting, and important tips for families and friends involved in the process.
- Washington’s Firm Stance on Pretextual Stops: State v. Ladson 138 Wn. 2d 343 (1999) Decision A deep dive into the State v. Ladson case, where the Washington Supreme Court established strict guidelines against pretextual stops, emphasizing the protection of individual rights during traffic stops.
- Understanding RCW 10.19.170 on Bail Decisions for Violent Offenses in Washington State This article explains RCW 10.19.170, which governs how bail decisions are made for violent offenses in Washington, outlining the legal factors judges consider when determining bail.
- Legal Implications of Fatal Rollover Crash in Easton, Washington An overview of the legal consequences following a fatal rollover crash in Easton, Washington, with a focus on liability, potential charges, and the impact on the community.
- Guidelines for Dropping Off Medication at Kittitas County Jail This guide provides essential information for individuals dropping off medication at Kittitas County Jail, including the jail’s specific policies and procedures to ensure compliance.
- Shocking Study: Philadelphia’s Private Defense Lawyers Miss More Court Dates Than Clients A report on a study showing that private defense lawyers in Philadelphia are missing more court dates than their clients, exploring the reasons behind this and its impact on the justice system.
- Court-Appointed Lawyers Targeted in Stolen Check Fraud Scheme: Six Charged This article examines a fraud scheme in which six individuals were charged for targeting court-appointed lawyers in a stolen check operation, discussing the legal ramifications and preventive measures.
- Understanding RCW 18.19.180: Confidential Communications An explanation of Washington’s RCW 18.19.180, which protects confidential communications between clients and counselors, emphasizing the importance of privacy in legal and counseling settings.
These resources provide vital legal information on Washington law, bail processes, and significant court rulings, offering guidance for those navigating complex legal matters.
Review our client resources here
Contact us anytime for your urgent legal needs.
About Blanford Law:
We are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers, that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply-seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions. If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253-720-9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com
