Legal Opinion
Neuman v. Akman
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 6, 1998No. 96-CV-1141PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEADMAN, Associate Judge:
Rule 5.6(a) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct bars a “partnership or employment agreement that restricts the rights of a lawyer to practice after termination of the' relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement.” The issue before us on this appeal is the scope of the “benefits upon retirement” exception.
Appellant Robert Neuman,- a former partner in the law firm of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn (“Arent Fox”), challenges the determination of the trial court that the firm did not violate Rule 5.6(a) when, pursuant to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & MarcusSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
- Howard v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Meehan v. SHAUGHNESSY COHENMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- Cohen v. LordNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Miller v. Foulston, Siefkin, Powers & EberhardtSupreme Court of Kansas · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Schoonmaker v. Cummings & Lockwood of Connecticut, P.C.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Donnelly v. Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville, Schoenebaum, & Walker, P.L.C.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1999
- Hoff v. Mayer, Brown and PlattAppellate Court of Illinois · 2002
- Borteck v. RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERERSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
- Donnelly v. Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville, Schoenebaum, & Walker, P.L.C.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.