## Facts

- Three lawyers practiced together under a partnership agreement effective January 1, 1973, as “Jung, Dwyer and Lisbona,” largely representing insurance carriers in negligence-defense matters.
- The partnership agreement provided that, upon termination, clients listed on an attached schedule would be “designated” to specific partners and other partners would be restricted from doing business with those clients for five years.
- The schedule allocated most listed insurance carriers to Jung, a small number to Dwyer, and none to Lisbona.
- Jung gave notice dissolving the partnership effective June 1, 1974; the lawyers continued operating together until about September 1, 1974, when they separated into two firms: “Dwyer and Lisbona” and “Jung and Howard.”
- Dwyer and Lisbona sued in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, primarily seeking an accounting.
- Jung counterclaimed, alleging Dwyer and Lisbona solicited or performed work for insurance carriers assigned to him, in violation of the five-year restriction.
- The Chancery Division entered an interlocutory order declaring the restrictive covenant void as against public policy and refusing to enforce it.
- The Appellate Division granted interlocutory review and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a law-firm partnership agreement may, upon dissolution, allocate specific clients to particular partners and restrict other partners from representing those clients for five years.
2. Whether such a restriction is unenforceable as contrary to public policy and professional-responsibility rules governing attorneys, including DR 2-108(A).

## Decision

- The Chancery Division held the restrictive covenant unenforceable and void as against public policy.
- The court reasoned that the provision treated clients as transferable assets and interfered with clients’ freedom to choose counsel.
- The Appellate Division affirmed per curiam substantially for the trial court’s reasons.
- The Appellate Division expressly held the covenant violated DR 2-108(A) and was unenforceable.
- Because the covenant was invalid, Jung could not obtain relief based on alleged breaches of that restriction.

## Legal Principles

- Clients are not property of a lawyer or firm; agreements that functionally allocate clients among lawyers at dissolution conflict with the nature of the attorney-client relationship.
- Public policy favors a client’s unrestricted choice of counsel; lawyer agreements that materially impede that choice are disfavored and may be void.
- Under DR 2-108(A), lawyers may not enter agreements restricting the right to practice after termination of a partnership or similar relationship, except in connection with retirement benefits.
- Commercial noncompete standards (including reasonableness balancing used in ordinary business contexts) do not govern lawyer noncompetes where professional-responsibility rules and client-choice concerns control.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a partnership provision that assigned clients to specific partners and barred other partners from representing those clients for five years after dissolution, holding such restrictions violate DR 2-108(A) and public policy protecting client autonomy in selecting counsel.


Dwyer v. Jung, 137 N.J. Super. 135, 348 A.2d 208 (App. Div. 1975)