In The News: Ninth Circuit Certifies Question To California Supreme Court On Whether A Dissolved Law Firm Has Any Property Interest In Unfinished Hourly Business

 

Jewel v. Boxer’s Continued Viability Is Squarely Under Consideration.

     In our June 14, 2014 post, we discussed U.S. District Judge Breyer’s decision in In the Matter of Heller Ehrman LLP, in which he determined that a dissolved law firm did not have a property interest in its pending hourly matters at a dissolution so as to not reach the issue of whether a waiver of Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal.App.3d 171 (1984) was a fraudulent transfer subject to “claw back” under bankruptcy principles. Later, on August 19, 2014, we posted on In re Thelen LLP, 24 N.Y.3d 16, 28 (2014), where the New York Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion. The dissolving law firm in Heller appealed the adverse decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

      We have a further update for you. On July 27, 2016, the Ninth Circuit in In the Matter of Heller Ehrman LLP, Case No. 14-16314 (9^th Cir. 7/27/16) (published) certified to the California Supreme Court the following outcome determinative question: “Under California law, does a dissolved law firm have a property interest in legal matters that are in progress but not completed at the time the law firm is dissolved, when the dissolved law firm had been retained to handle the matters on an hourly basis?” Proverbially speaking, stay tuned.