It goes without saying that these disputes are best settled privately and quietly whenever possible. Neither side ever comes out looking very good, particularly in what is still a relatively small legal community. Maybe these were some huge cases or something. Otherwise not worth it, for anyone.

That's why it's always better to take some time, put all emotion aside, and just stick to the clear, established facts. Have a level-headed colleague read the complaint. They will invariably suggest that things be toned down.

Throwing around statements that the firm, and their contract, is really unethical, as well as onerous and unfair to clients, is a bit too sweeping, particularly since Plaintiff, an attorney, knowingly signed the contract that he now views as The Employment Agreement From Hell.

And as a few posters suggest, the volume should be turned way down as these disputes are real common, and are usually ultimately resolved by alternate dispute resolution.

Also, a poster pointed out that we are still not a huge legal community. So true. Word gets around. Sounds like Plaintiff may be a young attorney and that this was his first job out of law school. I, of course, can't know if that is the case, but the degree that he personalized it, the degree of emotionalism he brought to the table, and the fact that he seems to view this is something unique and of high importance and significance, when in actuality these disputes are a dime-a-dozen, does suggest relative youth and inexperience.

A cautionary tale to be sure. That is one main reason why anyone with at least half-a-brain gets to the bargaining table to resolve these messes. They realize that they are inviting disaster if these cases move further through litigation with complete lack of clarity as to which attorney(s) is handling the cases, including the responsibility to conduct, and advance costs for, witnesses, investigators, transcription services, etc., etc., etc. It likewise remains in utter flux as to which attorney(s) will conduct written discovery, written motion practice, etc. In fact, all case work remains in dispute as to who is to perform it, as it is unresolved whose case it is.

This may not merely lead to major disaster. it guarantees major disaster. Only exception might be minor cases which are over a year from needing to file a complaint to protect against the statute. But even those can be real problematic, since it is unknown who is to negotiate with adjusters, and who is to advise the client, etc.

So, attorneys who nurse these grudges, and cater to their own greed and perceived righteousness at great cost to the clients, and at ultimate great cost to the attorneys as well, tend to be have a huge supply of ego but a short supply of brains and practical sense.

Agree totally with all these comments. No one wins in these matters. Everyone loses and its a total disaster. Unless you sit down and resolve it as promptly as possible, you ultimately invite malpractice lawsuits. The reason is that, particularly as to the higher end cases, the malpractice is virtually guaranteed. First, it is totally unclear as to which side should perform the work, particularly if thee client is caught in between and doesn't know how to decide such issue. If the client either directly decides(in writing) to stay with the initial firm, or go with the departing associate, it is assumed the attorney they select will perform the work.

But the second problem, as suggested above, is that the client's decision usually does not solve the problem and ward off eventual malpractice. The dynamic mentioned above is inevitable, at least based on my experience. The departing associate, who is now starting his own firm, is usually real high on confidence but truly lacking in operating capital. They usually don't have tens of thousands they can advance on various costs and experts, plus they refuse to advance large sums if they don't know if they will eventually be permitted to keep the case.

When the case is eventually screwed up(often, for lack of properly financing it)both sides wind up getting pursued or sued–the departed associate as well as his/her former form.

Now that you mention it, it does always follow that narrative. The firm the associate left will bemoan that he took all these cases with him, without the permission of the firm, how awful it all is, blah, blah. But when you get around to having a conversation with the associate who left the firm, he will claim he only took one or two cases, and that the firm thought the cases were bad and wanted him to take those cases.

happens every time.