Eisenstein v. Conlin

827 N.E.2d 686 (2005)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
E
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Eisenstein v. Conlin

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
827 N.E.2d 686 (2005)

  • Written by Casey Cohen, JD

Facts

Dike, Bronstein, Roberts & Cushman LLP (DBRC) (defendant) was a law firm specializing in patent, trademark, and copyright law. DBRC was organized under a partnership agreement. One section of the partnership agreement provided that when a partner left DBRC, he or she had to make payments to DBRC for any work the partner continued to do for current or former DBRC clients. Ronald Eisenstein and David Resnick (plaintiffs) were partners at DBRC. In 1999, Eisenstein and Resnick left DBRC to join a different firm, Peabody & Brown (Peabody). At Peabody, Eisenstein and Resnick worked for present and former DBRC clients. In 2001, Eisenstein and Resnick filed a complaint against DBRC and others seeking payments allegedly due to them under the DBRC partnership agreement, including for their share of profits and a return of capital contributions. DBRC filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and fiduciary duty. Eisenstein and Resnick moved for summary judgment, arguing that the provisions of the partnership agreement requiring payment to DBRC for work done for current or former DBRC clients after a partner left the firm were void and unenforceable under Rule 5.6 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Eisenstein and Resnick. DBRC appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 811,000 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

  2. 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 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Legal Ethics

Key Terms