629 So. 2d 545 - Minge v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]lthough worded in terms of the lawyer's right to practice, the underlying purpose of Rule 5.6 is to ensure the client's freedom to select counsel of his or her choice.... Since the Rules are designed "to serve the public interest in maximum access to lawyers and to preclude commercial arrangements that interfere with that goal," the "plain meaning (of Rule 5.6) indicates that any provision, whether direct or indirect, that operates so as to restrict a lawyer's post-termination practice will contravene the ethical rule." ... Although the financial disincentive provisions contained in the employment contract at issue here are not directly restrictive, they are of the type that violate the language and spirit of Rule 5.6: Because the client's freedom of choice is the paramount interest to be served by the RPC, a disincentive provision is as detrimental to the public interest as an outright prohibition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 678 So. 2d 561 - Warner v. Carimi Law Firm

2. “(a) A partnership or employment agreement that restricts the rights of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 678 So. 2d 561 - Warner v. Carimi Law Firm