Chartwell Partner Must Give Swartz Campbell Case List
"In contingent-fee matters, the prior law firm has no legal standing to recover fees from the departing lawyer or the departing lawyer's subsequent law firm," Chartwell said in its preliminary objections.
Chartwell further argued in its preliminary objections that if Swartz Campbell was allowed to proceed with its conversion claim, Reilly would be a necessary and indispensable party to the case and must therefore be named as a defendant.
Chartwell said in its preliminary objections that it has no privity of contract with Swartz Campbell.
McInerney denied those preliminary objections in February, however, and Chartwell has not filed preliminary objections to Swartz Campbell's amended complaint.
Reilly and Chartwell Chief Executive Officer Clifford Goldstein did not return calls seeking comment Thursday.
Chartwell partner Kenneth M. Dubrow, who is representing the firm in the suit, and McCarron also did not return calls seeking comment.
The allegations pertaining to Reilly are part of a larger suit in which Swartz Campbell has accused Chartwell of engaging in the "improper interference with and destruction of" its business interests, client relationships and partnership agreements, largely related to a 2012 lateral move that resulted in the closing of Swartz Campbell's Fort Myers, Fla., office and the opening of a Fort Myers location for Chartwell.
"Chartwell, by and through its agents and employees, has engaged in a pattern of conduct to systematically induce or entice members and employees of Swartz Campbell to leave Swartz Campbell and join Chartwell with the intention or design to interfere with the client relationships of Swartz Campbell, to destroy or usurp the competitive business operations of Swartz Campbell and to convert revenue owed to Swartz Campbell without consent or lawful justification," the amended complaint alleged.