From our private database of 36,900+ case briefs...
Beckman v. Farmer
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
579 A.2d 618 (1990)
In 1981, Robert Beckman (plaintiff) and Donald Farmer, Jr. (defendant) announced the formation of a new law firm, “Beckman & Farmer,” which served mostly clients of Beckman, mailing out notices that indicated the “formation of a partnership for the practice of law.” No formal partnership agreement was executed, but the lawyers agreed in writing that Farmer would receive an annual salary of $85,000 and a percentage of net profits above a certain amount, and Beckman was to provide financing and be reimbursed for expenses he covered. A third attorney, David Kirstein, joined the firm in 1982. The firm was renamed “Beckman, Farmer, & Kirstein,” and a document titled “Re: Partnership Agreement” revised the profit sharing of the firm and provided Kirstein an annual salary of $80,000 “guaranteed” by Beckman, plus a share of profits after a certain threshold was reached. Beckman routinely advanced his own money to pay firm expenses, which were all eventually repaid. Both Beckman and the firm’s accountant referred to the firm as a partnership in documents and memoranda, including partnership tax returns signed by Beckman, which identified Beckman, Farmer, and Kirstein as partners. Farmer signed promissory notes binding him as partner for debt obligations of loans made in the firm’s name, secured by the personal assets of Beckman and Beckman’s wife. Farmer eventually left the firm, and a dispute arose as to Farmer’s right to a share of profits from the settlement of an antitrust suit for one of the firm’s clients, Laker Airways. Beckman and Kirstein refused to provide Farmer a final winding up and accounting of the partnership. Farmer sued and claimed he was forced out by fraud and that his former partners breached their fiduciary duty to conduct a final accounting. The lower court granted summary judgment in Farmer’s favor, and Beckman appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Farrell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 629,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 36,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.