Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen
2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 2328, 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1642, 874 N.E.2d 1065 (2007)
Rule of Law:
An at-will employee does not breach their fiduciary duty of loyalty by engaging in mere preparation to compete, such as discussing future employment with coworkers, provided they do not actively solicit customers or employees prior to resignation. Additionally, compensation based on the employer's collection of revenue rather than the employee's direct labor does not constitute a "wage" under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
Facts:
- Larry Hansen worked as an associate attorney for the law firm Kopka, Landau & Pinkus (KLP) under an at-will employment agreement.
- Hansen decided to resign from KLP to join a new firm, Skiles Hansen Cook & DeTrude (SHCD).
- Prior to his resignation, Hansen discussed his departure with other KLP employees, specifically asking a paralegal about her salary requirements and confirming with an associate that he wanted them to have the opportunity to join him.
- Hansen did not make formal offers of employment to these coworkers while still employed by KLP.
- On September 18, 2000, Hansen resigned, and on the same day or shortly thereafter, several other associates and support staff also resigned to join SHCD.
- At the time of his departure, KLP owed Hansen "business development commissions" (BD compensation), which were calculated as a percentage of revenue actually collected from clients.
- KLP failed to pay Hansen the owed BD compensation upon his separation from the firm.
Procedural Posture:
- KLP filed a complaint against Hansen and SHCD in state court (venue transferred to Marion County).
- Hansen and SHCD filed an answer and counterclaims for malicious prosecution and unpaid wages under the Wage Payment Statute.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hansen/SHCD on all eight counts of KLP's complaint.
- The trial court conducted a bench trial regarding the appellees' counterclaims.
- The trial court entered judgment for Hansen on the Wage Payment Statute claim (awarding damages, penalties, and fees) and for Hansen/SHCD on the frivolous litigation claim (awarding fees).
- KLP appealed the summary judgment ruling and the counterclaim judgments to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an associate attorney breach a fiduciary duty to their employer by discussing potential future employment with coworkers before resigning, and do commissions contingent upon client collections qualify as "wages" subject to statutory penalties?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Baker
No, an employee does not breach their fiduciary duty by merely preparing to compete, and commissions based on collections are not statutory wages. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Hansen regarding the fiduciary duty claim. Relying on Potts v. Review Bd., the court reasoned that while an employee cannot actively compete (e.g., soliciting customers) while employed, they have a privilege to make arrangements to compete. Hansen's inquiries about salary requirements and expressions of interest in colleagues joining him constituted "mere preparation," not active competition. Regarding the counterclaims, the court reversed the award of statutory damages under the Wage Payment Statute. Citing Highhouse v. Midwest Orthopedic Inst., P.C., the court determined that because the "business development commissions" were tied to the contingency of client collections and paid irregularly, they were not "wages" under the statute. However, the court affirmed the award of attorney fees to Hansen for KLP's frivolous litigation, noting that KLP sued Hansen as a "partner" without evidence and admitted the suit was intended to dissuade other employees from leaving.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to prove a breach of fiduciary duty against departing employees. It clarifies the "fine line" between permissible preparation to compete—which includes verifying if colleagues are interested in moving—and impermissible active competition. This protects employee mobility in Indiana. Conversely, the ruling narrows the scope of the Wage Payment Statute, protecting employers from strict statutory penalties (double damages) regarding bonus or commission structures tied to financial collections rather than direct labor. The case also serves as a warning to litigious employers, as the court upheld fees for frivolous litigation where a firm used a lawsuit primarily to intimidate other employees.
