LEO 1113

LEO: Partnership - Dissolution of Law Firm - LE Op. 1113

Partnership - Dissolution of Law Firm - Terminating

Representation - Duty to Client.

August 24, 1988

You have advised that you were a partner in a law firm which has been

dissolved. As a result of the dissolution, you and your partner notified

all 600 of your clients and advised that they should elect either you or

your partner to continue handling their cases. You received responses from

all but approximately 100 clients. Of these 100 clients, you were involved

with or were the responsible attorney for 20 of them and your partner

dealt solely with the other 80 clients. You state that you are continuing

to follow up in attempting to contact these 20 clients. In addition to the

600 clients you state that there are other clients which were being

represented by your partner prior to the formation of your partnership,

and that you never did any work for these clients.

You ask whether you have any ethical responsibility or liability for the "

80 clients" and those that were clients of your partner prior to the

formation of your partnership. In regards to the "80 clients" the

Committee opines that you have taken reasonable steps to notify these

clients of the dissolution of the partnership. Thus, the Committee opines

that any such duty of notification which may be inferred from DR:2-102(C)

has been fulfilled. In regards to those individuals who were clients of

your partner prior to the formation of your partnership, the Committee

opines that because, under the facts presented, these clients never

engaged the partnership to represent them, no notification need be sent by

you.

The Committee further opines that because you never represented either of

these groups of clients, DR:2-108 governing the termination of

representation of clients is inapplicable to your relationship with them.

Insofar as your inquiry asks what measures you should take to relieve

yourself of legal liability, it is purely a legal question and is beyond

the province of the Committee.

Committee Opinion August 24, 1988

CROSS REFERENCES