Law Practice,
Law Office Management,
Bankruptcy,
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Apr. 26, 2016
Will 9th Circuit wrap up 'unfinished business'?
Whether the "Jewel doctrine" remains good law (and good policy), however, has come into question in light of the recent abundance of law firm bankruptcies, including a case pending in the 9th Circuit.
Suzzanne Uhland
Partner
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Email: suhland@omm.com
Suzzanne is chair of O'Melveny's US Restructuring Practice. She represents parties in Chapter 11 reorganizations and out of court restructurings and buyers and sellers in Bankruptcy Code Section 363(b) sales and other distress transactions. She also practices with the Firm's Transactions attorneys, both in bankruptcy cases and in structuring transactions to avoid bankruptcy-related risks.
Jennifer M. Taylor
Partner
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Email: jtaylor@omm.com
Jennifer represents clients in connection with the financing for leveraged buyouts, secured and unsecured working capital facilities, and other structured financings, including mezzanine loans, high yield, and the financing of debtors in bankruptcy.
Does the estate of a bankrupt law firm have the right to demand profits that its former partners generate at their new firms? Under the so-called "unfinished business" rule, client cases, including hourly rate cases, and the future profits from such cases are the property of the original firm that represents the client. Also known as the "Jewel doctrine" - an outgrowth of Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal. App. 3d 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) - the rule seemingly requires us to answer ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In