Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft v. Beasley

728 So. 2d 253 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P become a partner at D in its Palm Beach office in 1989. After his arrival, that office suffered from internal discord and, by 1994, the office was operating at a loss. The firm's management committee began discussions regarding the termination of up to 30 partners nationwide, including the Palm Beach partners. Unbeknownst to D, P was planning to leave the firm. He met secretly with associates in D's Palm Beach office about leaving with him. The management committee formally decided to close its Palm Beach office by year-end 1994. It informed its partners, including P, of its decision on August 30, 1994. P retained Professor Robert Hillman, who opined that D, pursuant to the partnership agreement, lacked the legal authority to expel him from the partnership. D sent a memorandum to P informing him that he was still a partner in the firm and offered either relocation within the firm but in the New York or Washington, D.C. offices, or, a compensation/severance package which included his return of capital, departure bonus, and full shares through December 31, 1994. P rejected the offers. P sued the firm for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, among other counts. On November 10, 1994, D sent a letter informing P to vacate the premises by 5:00 p.m. the next day. The letter specifically prohibited him from continuing to represent himself as associated with the firm. voluntarily left by year-end 1994 in any event. Because the partnership agreement lacked provisions for the expulsion of a partner except in one limited situation, he found that D had anticipatorily breached the partnership agreement when it announced its plans to close the Palm Beach office in August and then actually breached the agreement when it sent him the November 10, 1994 letter. P was awarded his paid-in capital plus interest, his percentage interest in the firm's accounts receivables and assets and interest thereon, and punitive damages, all totaling $2.5+ million. The judgment awarded P's attorney’s fees and costs. The court rejected P's claims for future lost income and retirement benefits. This appeal resulted.