Legal Opinion

Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C.

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 2006No. CV-05-0217-PRPublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HURWITZ, Justice.

¶ 1 Ethical Rule (“ER”) 5.6(a) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits an “agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice [law] after termination of [a law firm] relationship.” Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. 42 (2006). This case involves the application of ER 5.6(a) to & shareholder agreement requiring a departing lawyer to tender his stock to a professional corporation for no compensation if he thereafter competes with the corporation in the practice of law. We hold that such an agreement does not violate ER 5.6(a), but rather should be evaluated under…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & MarcusSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  2. Howard v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Cohen v. LordNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. Valley Medical Specialists v. FarberArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Dwyer v. JungNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Paduano v. Express Scripts, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
  2. Bonner v. Michigan Logistics Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2017
  3. Cooper v. QC Financial Services, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2007
  4. McCormick v. Dunn & Black, PSCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  5. SOGETI USA LLC v. ScarianoDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2009

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API