Lawlis v. Kightlinger & Gray

Indiana Court of Appeals
562 N.E.2d 435 (199)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Where a partnership agreement contains a no-cause expulsion clause, the expelling partners act in good faith, regardless of their motivation, so long as the expulsion is carried out according to the terms of the agreement and does not cause a wrongful withholding of money or property legally due to the expelled partner.

Facts:

Gerald L. Lawlis became a partner at the law firm Kightlinger & Gray in 1971, signing a partnership agreement.
In 1982, Lawlis developed an alcohol abuse problem which led to extended absences from work.
In August 1983, after his problem was disclosed, the partnership and Lawlis signed a 'Program Outline' which stated, 'there is no second chance.'
Lawlis relapsed in March 1984, but the partnership gave him a second chance and established new conditions for his continued relationship with the firm.
After remaining sober since his second treatment, Lawlis met with the firm's Finance Committee on October 1, 1986, to request an increase in his partnership participation units.
On October 28, 1986, the Finance Committee informed Lawlis it would recommend his severance from the partnership, and two days later, all firm files were removed from his office.
On February 28, 1987, the senior partners formally voted 7-to-1 to expel Lawlis, with Lawlis casting the sole dissenting vote, in accordance with the partnership agreement's two-thirds majority requirement for involuntary expulsion.

Procedural Posture:

Gerald L. Lawlis filed a lawsuit against the Kightlinger & Gray partnership in the Shelby Circuit Court for wrongful expulsion.
The defendant partnership moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Kightlinger & Gray.
Lawlis, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment 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 the expulsion of a partner under a 'no cause' provision in a partnership agreement violate the fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing when the alleged motive is to increase firm profitability for the remaining partners?

Opinions:

Majority - Conover, J.

No. The expulsion of a partner under a 'no cause' provision does not violate the duty of good faith and fair dealing, even if motivated by financial gain for the remaining partners, provided the expulsion adheres to the partnership agreement's procedures and does not wrongfully withhold assets due to the expelled partner. The Indiana Uniform Partnership Act requires an expulsion to be 'bona fide' or in 'good faith.' However, when partners freely negotiate a no-cause expulsion clause, 'good faith' is satisfied if the expelling partners act with a belief in their legal right to do so under the agreement and the act does not involve fraud, deceit, or wrongful withholding of money or property. The court rejected Lawlis's claim that the firm had a 'predatory purpose' of increasing profits at his expense, noting the firm's history of compassionately supporting him through his alcoholism and offering a six-month transition period rather than immediate termination. To inquire into the partners' motivation would be to improperly graft a 'for cause' requirement onto an agreement where the parties explicitly bargained for a no-cause provision.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the good faith duty in partnership expulsions where a no-cause provision exists. It establishes that courts will give great deference to the freedom of contract between partners, interpreting the duty of good faith narrowly to mean procedural and financial fairness, rather than scrutinizing the subjective motivations for the expulsion. This precedent empowers partnerships to remove partners for purely business or even arbitrary reasons if their agreement allows it, placing partners in a position analogous to at-will employees. Consequently, it underscores the critical importance for individuals entering partnerships to carefully negotiate the terms of involuntary separation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lawlis v. Kightlinger & Gray (199)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"