AN UNWORKABLE RESULT: EXAMINING THE APPLICATION OF THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS DOCTRINE TO LAW FIRM BANKRUPTCIES

The disastrous effect of the 2008 global financial crisis on the American legal industry is still evident. Some of America's largest, most prestigious law firms, firms thought to be insulated from such a crisis, succumbed to the economic aftershocks. As failed firms and their creditors attempt to pick up the pieces, jurisdictions across America have grappled with determining who owns the right to revenue from client business that was still pending at the time of bankruptcy. When a law firm dissolves, the legal issues underlying unfinished client business do not cease to exist-nor does a former partner's desire to continue practicing law. Unfinished business claims are the result of the partners of a bankrupt firm finding new employment and taking their old clients with them. Arguing that fees derived from work started at the bankrupt firm is property of that firm's bankruptcy estate, trustees bring unfinished business claims to recover this revenue. In many cases, the trustees have succeeded. Recent debate has centered on whether pending hourly fee arrangements should be included in the bankruptcy estate. The underlying basis for these unfinished business claims is based on antiquated law that does not apply to the modern legal industry. This Comment will demonstrate that extending unfinished business claims to hourly fee arrangements not only violates public policy but also creates unworkable results in a bankruptcy setting.