[DOWNLOAD] "Stevens G. Nicholson v. Nason and Cohen" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Stevens G. Nicholson v. Nason and Cohen
• Author : Supreme Court of New York
• Release Date : January 27, 1993
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 69 KB

Description

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J., upon the decision of Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on or about
October 16, 1992, which, in an action seeking to enforce a fee-splitting agreement between lawyers, granted defendant's motion
for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff's association with defendant did not amount to an "Of Counsel" relationship, and
thus find it unnecessary to decide whether the prohibition against fee-splitting found in the Code of Professional Responsibility
DR 2-107 (22 NYCRR 1200.12) applies to such a relationship. Under DR 2-107, unassociated lawyers may share in a fee if, among
other things, "the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by a writing given to the client,
each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation." Neither option avails plaintiff, who admittedly gave no
such writing to any of the clients, and whose work, the record establishes, was merely that of a finder, searching for potential
clients and conducting non-investigative interviews. While a fee-splitting agreement will be enforced where the attorney seeking
a share "performed some work, labor or services which contributed toward the earning of the fee" there being no requirement
that compensation be in proportion to the amount of work actually performed (Oberman v Reilly, 66 A.D.2d 686, 687, appeal
dismissed 48 N.Y.2d 602), more is required of the forwarding attorney than the mere recommendation of a lawyer (see, Carter
v Katz, Shandell, Katz & Erasmous, 120 Misc. 2d 1009, 1018). Given the important policy goals underlying DR 2-107 and
the well-established right of states to regulate the legal profession (Goldfarb v Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773), we think
this is a reasonable restriction on the right to contract. We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them
to be without merit.

Download Free Books "Stevens G. Nicholson v. Nason and Cohen" PDF ePub Kindle