The Tolson Firm, LLC v. Hezekiah Sistrunk, Jr.
2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 421, 789 S.E.2d 265, 338 Ga. App. 25 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney, acting as an agent of their law firm, owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty that is breached if the attorney solicits firm clients for a competing enterprise before the employment relationship has been unequivocally terminated and without first providing the firm with adequate and timely notice of their intent.
Facts:
- Audrey Tolson was an associate attorney at The Cochran Firm with authority to accept or reject cases and serve as the primary contact for clients.
- On Friday, May 6, Tolson informed the firm's office manager that she was leaving but asked the manager not to tell anyone else.
- Over the subsequent weekend, before formally notifying any partners of her departure, Tolson contacted several firm clients whose cases she handled.
- A client's daughter provided testimony that on Saturday, May 7, Tolson stated she was leaving the firm and wanted to take over her mother's case.
- On Monday, May 9, Tolson sent an email to a managing partner, formally announcing her resignation and stating she would be taking seven clients with her at their request.
- Upon her departure, Tolson took eight cases from The Cochran Firm, five of which later settled for a cumulative sum of nearly three million dollars.
Procedural Posture:
- The Cochran Firm sued Audrey Tolson and The Tolson Firm, LLC in a Georgia trial court, asserting claims including breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment.
- Audrey Tolson filed a counterclaim against The Cochran Firm for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment for work performed on cases that resolved after her departure.
- The defendants (Tolson) filed a motion for summary judgment on all of The Cochran Firm's claims.
- The plaintiffs (The Cochran Firm) filed a motion for summary judgment on Tolson's counterclaim.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing the firm's claims to proceed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to The Cochran Firm on Tolson's counterclaim, dismissing her claims.
- The defendants (Tolson, as appellant) appealed both the denial of their summary judgment motion and the grant of the firm's summary judgment motion to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
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 their fiduciary duty to their law firm by soliciting firm clients to join their new practice before providing clear, formal notice of resignation to the firm's partners?
Opinions:
Majority - Boggs, Judge
Yes. An attorney breaches the fiduciary duty of loyalty owed to their firm by soliciting the firm's clients before the employment relationship has definitively ended. The court reasoned that an agent cannot engage in acts in direct competition with their employer prior to the termination of the agency relationship. Because there was conflicting evidence as to whether Audrey Tolson's employment ended on Friday, May 6 (when she told the office manager) or Monday, May 9 (when she emailed a partner), a genuine issue of material fact exists for a jury to decide. If her solicitation of clients over the weekend occurred before her employment officially ended, it would constitute a breach of her fiduciary duty. The court also reversed summary judgment on other claims, finding that Tolson was not liable for tortious interference because she was not a 'stranger' to the client contracts, and that the claims for money had and received and unjust enrichment failed as a matter of law. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the firm's quantum meruit claim and reversed the grant of summary judgment against Tolson on her own counterclaim for quantum meruit.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict fiduciary obligations that at-will employee attorneys owe to their firms. It clarifies that ambiguous or secretive actions surrounding a resignation can expose a departing attorney to liability for breach of loyalty if they solicit clients before the firm has been clearly and formally notified of the departure. The court's reliance on the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers signals a standard of conduct requiring attorneys to provide timely notice to their firm before contacting clients about potential future representation. This precedent serves as a crucial guide for the ethical and legal boundaries of an attorney's departure, impacting both departing attorneys and the firms seeking to protect their client relationships.
