Michael E. Marr, P.C. v. Langhoff
Maryland Court of Appeals
589 A.2d 470 (1991)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Stephen Langhoff (defendant), Michael Marr, and Richard Bennett incorporated their law-firm partnership as a professional-services corporation called Marr, Langhoff & Bennett (ML&B). Langhoff decided to leave ML&B. Bennett and Langhoff agreed that, following ML&B’s dissolution, the three former partners would go their separate ways, with Marr and Bennett partnering under the name Michael E. Marr, P.C. (Marr P.C.) (plaintiff). One of ML&B’s existing clients, Marguerite Cook, was engaged in major ongoing litigation. Langhoff took the Cook file with him, without permission, when he left Marr P.C.’s office. Cook subsequently retained Langhoff to take her case to trial. Langhoff earned a substantial fee for winning Cook’s case. Marr P.C. sued to collect its share of the Cook fee, claiming that Langhoff breached his fiduciary duty to ML&B and by extension Langhoff’s fiduciary duty to Marr P.C. as the continuing firm. The trial court applied partnership law and entered judgment for Marr P.C. The intermediate appellate court reversed and remanded the case for redetermination under corporation law. Marr P.C. appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rodowsky, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
