Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): an “of counsel” attorney who was not an employee of the firm but who participated on an ad hoc basis in the firm’s caseload. While the attorney was “of counsel” for more than one law firm at the same time, he was active on more than twenty-five cases for the firm over a five-year period, and he held himself out (and was held out by the firm) as acting on behalf of and affiliated in some manner with the firm. In its decision, the District Court stated that “[a] lawyer who is acting ‘of counsel’ for a law firm and held out to the public will be regarded as a ‘member’ within 11 U.S.C. § 504, so as to be free from statutory limitations on fee sharing arrangements.” Lemonedes, 226 B.R. at 132 (citations omitted); see also In re Sheehan Memorial Hosp., 380 B.R. 299, 303 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>); but see In re Bradley, 495 B.R. 747, 767 n. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a fee sharing arrangement between attorneys was enforceable even though one attorney failed to register with the state as required (B) holding the same with respect to an apartment (C) holding provision in attorneys fee contract requiring client that terminated contract to immediately pay attorney fee equal to present value of attorneys interest in case was inconsistent with public policy and unconscionable (D) holding that service provider was not a fiduciary with respect to revenue sharing because the total expenses associated with each investment option were fully disclosed (E) holding that when attorneys were acting as members of the firm with respect to the case in question section 504b1 applies to allow  fee sharing with any member whether that membership is regular or sporadic
Output (English): holding that a fee sharing arrangement between attorneys was enforceable even though one attorney failed to register with the state as required