Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Reynolds can't get over it ... Former senator drops off news to her favourite hacks at The Australian ... Linda Reynolds is suing the Commonwealth and lawyers HWL Ebsworth over the Brittany Higgins settlement ... Claim that $2.4 million payment to former staffer affirmed Higgins' allegation ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Rupert World ... Lord Moloch’s pal Doug the Diva – driving Washington spare … News UK’s model for unionism … What next for the Washington Post? … Concealed coal lobbyists running an anti-Teal campaign … More corruption busting for Stinging Nettle … The litigation industry spawned by Lehrmann ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Party time for Dicey ... Heydon's book - a pathway to rehabilitation ... The predatory man and the clever intellect - all wrapped up in the one person ... Academic tome and cancel agenda ... Despite the plaudits the record of abuse doesn't vanish ... Book launch with young associates at a safe distance ... Procrustes thinks out loud ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


The Lubyanka ... Bullying investigation into former Federal Court judge goes nowhere ... "Complaint unsubstantiated" ... Phew! ... Recommendations about staff education ... Nothing recommended for judicial induction ... More >> 

 

Justinian's Bloggers

Governance turmoil at Tiny Town Law Society ... Night of the long knives ... Lakeside in Canberra ... ACT Law Society upheaval over governance changes ... Bodies carted out of the council room ... Blood on the carpet ... Fraught litigation another distraction ... From Gang Gang ... Read more >> 


"We're in unchartered territory here. A Pope hasn't died before during an Australian election campaign."  

Jane Norman, National Affairs Correspondent, ABC News ... April 21, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 
Justinian Featurettes

Letter from Rome ... Judges on strike ... Too much "reform" ... Berlusconi legacy ... Referendum on the way ... Constitutional court inflames the Meloni regime with decision on boat people ... Insults galore ... Silvana Olivetti reports ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Tea is for Tippy ... Life of a tiffstaff ... Bright, ambitious and, when it comes to the crucial things, hopeless ... Milking the glory of the gig ...  Introducing Tippy, our new blogger filing from within the concrete cage at Queens Square ... From Justinian's Archive, March 15, 2010 ...  Read more >> 


 

 

« Peasants and the monarchy | Main | Pencast Fratelli »
Thursday
May152003

The luck of the Irish

Horrible lawyer stories from Yarraside ... A case of feuding partners ... More heat than light ... Costs of fight far outweigh amount in dispute ... From Justinian's treasure-trove of stories, May 15, 2003 

WHAT happens when partners in a law firm fall out? Try this.

The aggrieved partner (Mr Fagenblat) tendered his resignation from the partnership, while suggesting to his old firm (Feingold Partners) that they might retain him as a "consultant".

He then asked for a salary equivalent to 30 percent of his billings. One of the firm's own accountants (Mr Borsky) offered to put a value on his (Fagenblat’s) share of goodwill in the business.

Only trouble is, Borsky happens to be Fagenblat’s brother-in-law.

Feingold Partners was not impressed, either with Borsky's negotiating skills (they seemed a little one-sided) or when Fagenblat raised his salary demand to 50 percent of his billings.

Things begin to fall apart rapidly, with no agreement on anything being reached before or after the official date of termination (June 30, 2000).

Fagenblat left Feingold Partners two months later, taking with him a number of his clients and setting-up a nice little practice of his own.

Unsurprisingly, Feingold Partners and Fagenblat ended up in court.

After "expert testimony" from brother-in-law Borsky, Pagone J found in favour of Fagenblat to the tune of $375,399 (with interest) being the value of his goodwill in Feingold Partners at the time of his partnership termination. (Fagenblat’s share of the partnership’s assets was not in dispute.)

The remaining partners (Feingold, Gurgiel and Tuszynski) were not happy.

They appealed on the grounds that Borsky’s evidence should never have been admitted because of "perceived bias" and that his methodology for calculating the value was based on the mistaken assumption that Fagenblat would be staying on as an employee.

The appeal was upheld unanimously by Ormiston, Chernov and Eames, but only on the facts, not on the issue of Borsky’s "independence".

A re-trial was ordered to properly establish the value of Fagenblat's share of goodwill, given that he didn't stay.

In his leading judgment Ormiston said:

"There was in my opinion no basis in principle for excluding Mr Borsky’s expert evidence, whatever one might have said as to the wisdom of calling him as an expert in this action." 

He said the real issue is Borsky’s "competence" and it is on these grounds that the appeal was successful.

Ormiston said that Borsky's evidence that Fagenblat was staying on (used as a basis for calculating the capitalisation rate applied to future maintainable earnings) was simply relied upon too heavily by Pagone. 

Justices Chernov and Eames were of the same mind.

Which leaves Fagenblat and Feingold Partners more or less back where they started.

But, not without a final word from The Orm:

"Again the court has before it an appeal arising out of a bitter dispute between former partners in a solictors' practice, in which the amount in dispute is far exceeded by the heat generated by it." 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.