Opinion ID: 2525545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: law firm employment contracts

Text: In 1987, Oliver and Wallace Saunders executed an employment contract. As part of Oliver's consideration, he agreed that he shall not, without the express prior written consent of [Wallace Saunders], directly or indirectly, during the term of this agreement, render services of a professional nature to or for any person or firm for compensation or engage in any activity competitive with and adverse to [Wallace Saunders'] business or practice. The contract set forth the manner in which it could be terminated and noted that upon termination, Oliver shall not be entitled to keep or preserve files or records of [Wallace Saunders] as to any client unless said client shall specifically request a different disposition of his file. Further, Oliver agreed to carry out and to perform orders, directions and policies of the firm and acknowledged that [Wallace Saunders] shall have final authority over acceptance or refusal of any client and over the amount of fee to be charged any client for professional services. The same date, Oliver and Wallace Saunders entered into a Deferred Compensation Agreement (DCA), whereby the firm agreed to pay Oliver compensation in addition to the salary and bonus referred to in the employment contract. The additional compensation represented an amount equal to [Oliver's] interest in the active accounts receivable and work-in-process of the corporation. The DCA described a formula to calculate Oliver's interest in the firm's accounts receivable and work-in-process that would accrue after his date of employment. Subsequently, the parties executed an addendum to the DCA. On April 1, 2005, Wallace Saunders and Oliver entered into an agreement purporting to settle the amounts due to Oliver upon his termination from the firm. The settlement agreement recites that the employment agreement had been amended in 1995, that the date of the DCA was January 1, 1993, and that a stock purchase agreement had been entered on January 1, 1993, and amended November 2, 2004, albeit those dates do not match the documents in the appeal record. The calculation of Oliver's share of work-in-process reflects that the amount due to Oliver was reduced by 32 files which were withdrawn from the firm, 12 of which were taken by Oliver. At the same time, the parties executed a carve-out agreement, acknowledging that they disagreed on how to handle the Hotchkiss v. Olathe Medical Center case and any fees which may arise from that case, including referral fees, deferred compensation fees and accounting for that case and file. The carve-out agreement clarified that both parties were preserving their claims to the Hotchkiss referral fee, notwithstanding their respective releases in the agreement for amounts due under the deferred compensation and stock purchase agreements.