Holstein v. Grossman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an oral fee-sharing agreement is unenforceable as a matter of public policy because it violates the Code of Professional Responsibility
• holding that a “fee-sharing agreement which is primarily based on a client referral is unenforceable as a matter of public policy where the undisputed facts show that the referred client never consented in writing to the attorneys’ arrangement”
• explaining that “[a]s a general rule, courts will not enforce a private agreement which is contrary to public policy”
• intra-attorney fee-sharing agreement based primarily on client referral unenforceable as a matter of public policy where client did not agree to arrangement in writing
• appellate court discussed Phillips and approved the standard of substantial compliance in applying the predecessor rule
• intra-attorney fee- sharing agreement based primarily on client referral unenforceable as a matter of public policy where client did not agree to arrangement in writing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).