## Facts

- Partners in an insurance-defense law firm executed a written partnership agreement containing a provision that permitted remaining partners to forfeit specified withdrawal benefits if multiple partners withdrew and, within one year, practiced together in competing insurance-defense work in the Los Angeles or Orange County courts.
- The agreement defined withdrawal benefits to include the partner’s capital plus an additional amount tied to the partner’s share of net profits the partner would have received during the first year after withdrawal.
- In 1987, several partners withdrew and formed a competing insurance-defense firm in Orange County.
- About 200 pending matters previously handled by the original firm moved to the new firm.
- The original firm treated the withdrawals as triggering the forfeiture clause, paid only capital accounts, and withheld the additional withdrawal benefits.
- The departing partners sued, contending the forfeiture provision was an unlawful restraint on the practice of law and seeking payment and an accounting.

## Issues

1. Whether a law-firm partnership agreement that conditions payment of certain withdrawal benefits on a departing partner’s decision not to compete is void as a restraint of trade or an impermissible restriction on the right to practice law.
2. Whether statutory partnership exceptions to California’s general ban on restraints of trade apply to law partnerships.
3. Whether such a forfeiture provision is enforceable only if it imposes a reasonable economic cost in scope and effect.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal to the extent it held the provision unenforceable as a matter of law.
- The Court held that an agreement among law partners may impose a reasonable economic “toll” (including forfeiture of specified withdrawal benefits) on partners who choose to compete with the former firm.
- The Court concluded the partnership exception to restraints of trade applies to law partnerships and can coexist with professional-conduct limits on practice restrictions.
- The Court remanded for the trial court to determine whether the particular forfeiture provision at issue was reasonable under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- California’s general policy voiding contractual restraints on lawful professions is subject to a statutory exception permitting certain competition-limiting agreements among partners upon dissolution or withdrawal within a specified geographic area.
- For law partnerships, a clause that does not bar practice but instead attaches a reasonable economic consequence to post-departure competition is not per se invalid.
- Professional-conduct rules prohibiting agreements restricting a lawyer’s right to practice do not necessarily forbid all economic disincentives; they chiefly target direct limits on the lawyer’s ability to represent clients.
- Enforceability depends on reasonableness, including the scope of the condition, its geographic and temporal limits, and the economic burden imposed.

## Conclusion

The court held that law partners may agree to a reasonable forfeiture of certain contractual withdrawal benefits if departing partners compete, but the specific provision must be tested for reasonableness on remand rather than deemed automatically void.


Howard v. Babcock, 6 Cal. 4th 409 (Cal. 1993)