Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ambiguity in Law Firm Partnership Agreements
You would expect that lawyers, many of whom draft and revise contracts on a daily basis, would be especially careful to draft their own law firm partnership agreements so as to make their intentions clear and remove areas of potential ambiguity. Yet this does not always happen. In several recent cases, partners have brought suit against their firms or former firms, and argue that provisions of their partnership agreements should be interpreted one way, while the firms have chosen to implement the provisions in other ways. In these cases, courts must decide if the clauses at issue have at least two reasonable interpretations and are therefore sufficiently ambiguous that the matters should be decided by a fact-finder, or if the provisions are clear enough that they are unambiguous and the claims do not survive summary judgment.
A traditional way courts resolve ambiguity in contract disputes is by applying the doctrine of contra proferentem, which means that if the intent of the parties is impossible to discern, any ambiguities must be construed against the drafter as a matter of law. However, in cases 'where the relevant extrinsic evidence offered raises a question of credibility or presents a choice among reasonable inferences the construction of the ambiguous terms of the contract is a question of fact which precludes the application of the contra proferentem rule.' Morgan Stanley Group, Inc. v. New England Ins. Co., 36 F. Supp. 2d 605, 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff'd in part & vacated in part on other grounds, 225 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2000).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.