§Why CasetextPricing

In re: Thelen LLP.

Brief

38 Cited authorities

  1. Geron ex rel. Estate of Thelen LLP v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (In re Thelen LLP)

    736 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 257 times
    Holding that partnership's status as a registered California entity did not alter conclusion that New York law should apply to fraudulent transfer claims

  2. Niesig v. Team I

    76 N.Y.2d 363 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 180 times
    Finding a prohibition againstex parte employee interviews unnecessary to protect the corporation's interests, including its interest in protecting privileged communications

  3. Denburg v. Parker Chapin

    82 N.Y.2d 375 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a clause invalid pursuant to DR 2-108

  4. Santalucia v. Sebright Transp., Inc.

    232 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 102 times
    Finding waiver when adjudicating fee dispute after the settlement of an underlying suit

  5. Cohen v. Lord, Day Lord

    75 N.Y.2d 95 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 118 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lawyer possesses a private right of action with which he can seek to invalidate a clause that hampers his ability to practice law

  6. Beckman v. Farmer

    579 A.2d 618 (D.C. 1990)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that “pending contingent fee cases are partnership property and, therefore, assets subject to distribution on dissolution”

  7. Greenspan v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (In re Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP)

    408 B.R. 318 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 39 times
    Granting summary judgment where the debtor's books and records and general ledger did not show any connection to any valuable goods or services and defendants did not demonstrate that the transfers were the result of a bargained for exchange

  8. Ederer v. Gursky

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9960 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that New York's limited liability partnership legislation "eliminated the vicarious liability of a general partner"

  9. Jewel v. Boxer

    156 Cal.App.3d 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 86 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding income generated through the winding up of unfinished cases is allocated to the former partners and the right of the client to select an attorney of one's choice is irrelevant to the rights and duties between the parties

  10. Rosenfeld, Meyer Susman v. Cohen

    146 Cal.App.3d 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 81 times

    Docket No. 62372. August 18, 1983. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C140450, Campbell M. Lucas and Alexander R. Early III, Judges. COUNSEL Harney Moore, Rosenfeld, Meyer Susman, Gary A. Schlessinger, Sondra Berchin, Clifford W. Gilbert, Horvitz Greines, Irving H. Greines and Alan G. Martin for Plaintiff and Appellant. Peter R. Cohen, in pro. per., William I. Chertok and Belcher, Henzie, Biegenzahn, Chertok Walker for Defendants and Appellants. OPINION NEBRON, J.[fn*] [fn*] Assigned