Pettersen v. Monaghan Safar Ducham P.L.L.C.

William J. Pettersen (plaintiff) was hired as an associate attorney by Monaghan Safar Ducham P.L.L.C. (the law firm) (defendant). Unhappy with his salary of $60,000, Pettersen approached his managing partner, Monaghan, to discuss the firm’s typical partnership track. Pettersen told Monaghan that he believed becoming a partner and earning $100,000 per year after five years was reasonable. To do this, Pettersen told Monaghan that he would need to receive larger raises each year so that his salary reached $100,000 after five years. Monaghan agreed that the proposed trajectory was reasonable. After Pettersen received an annual raise out of line with his desired trajectory, Pettersen gave the law firm a letter stating that he believed the law firm had breached its promise of a partnership track and that he had a legal claim against the law firm for its breach. The letter offered to settle the claim and stated that Pettersen would seek employment elsewhere. Pettersen sued the law firm for promissory estoppel, among other claims, alleging that the firm had promised him a partnership track and that he detrimentally relied on this promise by staying at the law firm. Pettersen alleged that Monaghan’s statement that the trajectory Pettersen desired was reasonable constituted a promise and that Pettersen continued working for the law firm in reliance on that promise. However, Pettersen continued to look for jobs after his conversation with Monaghan but before receiving his raise. The law firm moved for summary judgment, and the trial court entered judgment in the law firm’s favor. Pettersen appealed.