Heller Ehrman LLP v. Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP

ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

A law firm — and its attorneys — do not own the matters on which they perform their legal services. Their clients do. A client, for whatever reason, may summarily discharge counsel and hire someone else. At that point, the client owes fees only for services performed to the date of discharge, and his former lawyer must, even if fees are in dispute, cease working on the matter and immediately cooperate in the. transfer of files to new counsel.

It is in this context that the Court is asked to address a question of first impression: namely, whether a law firm— which has been dissolved by virtue of creditors terminating their financial support, thus rendering it impossible to continue to provide legal services in ongoing matters — is entitled to assert a property interest in hourly fee matters pending at the time of its dissolution.

This issue was presented to the Bankruptcy Court, which this Court reviews de novo. See Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2165 , 189 L.Ed.2d 83 (2014) citing Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594 , 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011). In doing so, the Court concludes that under the…