Overland v. Scheper Kim & Harris LLP

2013 WL 4027455 (2013)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Overland v. Scheper Kim & Harris LLP

California Court of Appeal
2013 WL 4027455 (2013)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

Former partner Mark Overland (plaintiff) sued law firm Scheper Kim & Harris LLP (defendant) claiming he was entitled to a payout of 25 percent of the firm’s value upon leaving the firm. Overland was one of four partners who originally formed the partnership as Overland Borenstein Scheper & Kim LLP. The firm never had a written partnership agreement or even a comprehensive oral agreement. The partners made decisions by consensus, giving each partner an equal say. The firm did not require capital contributions or retain working capital from year to year and always distributed profits to each partner at the end of the year. The partners agreed on their shares based on merit, giving heavy weight to earnings each partner brought into the firm. The partners received roughly equal shares only in the first year, then vastly different shares thereafter. Over five years, Overland’s share dropped such that his profit share for the year ending four months before his departure was only 4 percent. When Overland announced his resignation and requested a buyout of his partnership interest, partner Diann Kim said she had consulted a partnership lawyer who said it was unlikely a buyout was due because the firm’s liabilities outweighed its assets. However, that partnership lawyer testified he did not recall any discussion with Kim and denied giving her that advice. Meanwhile, the partners stipulated that when Overland left, the firm’s equity totaled $2,850,000, and Overland owed the firm $21,084 for insurance premiums. The firm refused to pay Overland anything, demanded reimbursement for the insurance premiums, and did not give Overland any profit share for the year in which he left. The court concluded that Overland was entitled to a 4 percent share of the firm’s equity as of the date he left. After subtracting the insurance premiums, that share translated to a buyout of $91,916. In addition, the court awarded Overland attorney fees and costs of $97,146. Overland appealed, claiming entitlement to 25 percent.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Boren, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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 832,000 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
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 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