A quarterly summary and brief analysis of significant decisions issued by the Massachusetts Superior Court Business Litigation Session. A service of O’Connor, Carnathan and Mack LLC.		  

February 2005

Volume 1
Number 3
Page 2
 

Summarizing
opinions from
Oct. 1, 2004 through
Dec. 31, 2004


Law Firm Cannot Prevent Former Partner From Practicing Law
 

 
 
 

 

 


 

 

 

 
     

O  T  H  E  R      D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N  S  :

Lampert, Hausler & Rodman, PC v. Gallant, 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 593
(December 17, 2004) (Van Gestel, J.)..
     

After one of the partners/shareholders in a small law firm resigned, the former partners battled over entitlement to fees from certain contingent cases pending at the time of the firm’s dissolution. Among the claims made by the firm was that the departing partner breached his fiduciary duties to the firm by competing with it at a new firm in the same town.

The Court confronted a tension between the fiduciary duties owed one another by shareholders in a closely held corporation

 

 


 

 

 

on the one hand and Rule 5.6 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct on the other. Rule 5.6 prohibits “an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy.”

The Court emphasized that Rule 5.6 is based upon the interests of the clients rather than the lawyers, and held that Rule 5.6 bars enforcement of a fiduciary duty that would restrict a lawyer’s right to practice law.


 
 

 

 

 


 

 

 
 
     
     
 


Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Alleged Violation of Non Compete Denied
 

 
 

 

 


 



 

Konanki v. Calibrate, Inc., 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 624
(December 6, 2004) (Botsford, J.).
     

The court entertained Calibrate, Inc.’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to prevent Konanki, a former area manager, from allegedly violating a non-compete agreement, after Calibrate unilaterally reduced Konaki’s compensation. Georgia law governed the non compete.

The Court held that Calibrate failed to show a substantial likelihood that it

 

 

 


 
would prevail on the merits, where Konanki had a persuasive defense that Calibrate had breached the agreement by failing to pay him as agreed. The Court further found that Calibrate had not demonstrated any irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms favored Konanki, where the requested relief would have barred Konanki from working in the field he had known for fourteen years.
 

 

 

 

 


 
 
P A G E   1  2  3