William M. Freeman v. Richard A. Mayer and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a technical violation of the written-agreement requirement of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) did not operate to invalidate a fee-splitting agreement that was otherwise valid
• holding that Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct do not provide grounds for relief from an otherwise valid contract and questioning if the rule would give standing to an attorney because it is intended to protect clients
• holding “our best prediction is that the Indiana Supreme 18 Court would not permit one of its attorneys to invoke Rule 1.5(e) as a shield against living 19 up to a substantively unobjectionable contractual arrangement with an out-of-state 20 lawyer”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).