The following excerpt is from Geron v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (In re Thelen LLP), 20 N.E.3d 264, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04879, 24 N.Y.3d 16, 995 N.Y.S.2d 534 (N.Y. 2014):
Ultimately, what the trustees ask us to endorse conflicts with New York's strong public policy encouraging client choice and, concomitantly, attorney mobility. In Cohen v. Lord, Day & Lord, 75 N.Y.2d 95, 96, 551 N.Y.S.2d 157, 550 N.E.2d 410 (1989), the partnership agreement provided that a departing partner forfeited his right to departure compensation if he practiced law in competition with his former firm. The lower court held that the provision was a valid ... financial disincentive to competition and did not prevent plaintiff from practicing law in New York or in any other jurisdiction (id. at 97, 551 N.Y.S.2d 157, 550 N.E.2d 410 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
We reversed, holding that these financial penalties impermissibly interfered with clients' choice of counseli.e., [t]he
[24 N.Y.3d 33]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.