In Practice

Guard Against 'Jewel' Impact

Disbanding law firms must gauge the interests they wish to protect they wish to protect when their lawyers move on

Daily Report

   |0 Comments

No case in recent history has impacted the portability of rainmakers at law firms more than Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal. App. 3d 171, 203 Cal. Rptr 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). Since Jewel, law firms and individual attorneys have debated exactly how, and more importantly whether, to mitigate its impact.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202597076303

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.