Meehan v. SHAUGHNESSY COHEN

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
535 N.E.2d 1255, 404 Mass. 419 (1989)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Departing partners in a law firm breach their fiduciary duty of utmost good faith and loyalty when they secretly solicit clients, misrepresent their plans to leave to their partners, and use their position to gain an unfair advantage in acquiring clients' consent to remove cases.

Facts:

James F. Meehan and Leo V. Boyle were partners at the law firm Parker, Coulter, Daley & White (Parker Coulter).
On July 1, 1984, Meehan and Boyle decided to leave Parker Coulter to form their own firm, MBC, and began secretly making logistical arrangements.
They recruited a junior partner, Cynthia Cohen, and several associates, instructing them to keep the plans confidential.
While still partners, they secured office space, obtained financing using lists of clients they intended to take, and prepared client authorization forms on Parker Coulter letterhead.
Between July and November 1984, Meehan was asked by other partners on three separate occasions if he was leaving, and each time he denied it.
Immediately upon giving notice of their departure on November 30, 1984, they began calling and mailing the prepared letters and authorization forms to clients.
The letters sent to clients did not clearly state that the clients had the choice to remain with Parker Coulter.
Boyle delayed providing his partners with a list of the clients he intended to solicit until after he had already obtained authorizations from a majority of them.

Procedural Posture:

James Meehan and Leo Boyle sued their former partners at Parker Coulter in a Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court) to recover amounts owed under the partnership agreement.
Parker Coulter filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the partnership agreement, and tortious interference.
Parker Coulter also filed a third-party action against the new firm (MBC) and other departing attorneys.
After a jury-waived trial, the Superior Court judge found for Meehan and Boyle on all claims.
Parker Coulter, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review.

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 a law firm partner breach their fiduciary duty to the partnership by secretly making logistical arrangements to start a competing firm, denying their departure plans to other partners, and sending preemptive, one-sided communications to clients to solicit their business for the new firm?

Opinions:

Majority - Hennessey, C.J.

Yes. Partners breach their fiduciary duty of utmost good faith and loyalty when they unfairly acquire client consent to move cases by using secrecy, denying their departure plans, and sending preemptive, one-sided communications to clients. While partners may plan to compete and make logistical arrangements, they may not violate their fiduciary duties in the process. Meehan and Boyle's conduct, including Meehan's denials and the swift, preemptive campaign to solicit clients using Parker Coulter's letterhead, constituted a breach of their duty of loyalty. The letters were unfairly prejudicial because they failed to clearly present clients with the choice to remain with Parker Coulter, thereby taking advantage of their partners' trust and the confusion caused by their departure.

Analysis:

This decision provides a crucial framework for analyzing the fiduciary duties of departing partners in a professional service firm. It clarifies the line between permissible logistical planning to compete and impermissible, secretive conduct that harms the partnership. By shifting the burden of proof on causation to the departing partners who breached their duty, the court created a strong deterrent against unfair client solicitation. The case serves as a foundational precedent for how law firm dissolutions are handled, emphasizing fairness, transparency, and the client's right to an informed choice.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Meehan v. SHAUGHNESSY COHEN (1989)

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