A law firm's bitter breakup laid bare
Headline News
They call him "psychologically abusive." He insists their "venomous attacks" and "reckless hyperbole" are motivated by greed and personal vendettas.
They say they were appalled by his "fiscal and executive mismanagement" and "reckless and wasteful spending." He dismisses their accusations as "baseless and defamatory."
It's the kind of overheated language that often has aggrieved parties hiring lawyers. But in this case, lawyers themselves are making the angry allegations. And their dispute is detailed in a tell-all lawsuit that lays bare an ugly business divorce, the kind usually settled behind closed doors.
The case, which goes to arbitration this month, involves the acrimonious breakup of the founders of Donovan Hatem, a 50-lawyer Boston law firm. Nine former partners have sued the firm and founder David J. Hatem, whom they describe as jealous, tyrannical, and dictatorial, claiming they are owed a collective $2 million in unpaid compensation.
The lawyers, who left the firm last summer to open a new Boston firm, LeClairRyan, accuse Hatem of manipulating the firm's finances to prevent them from be ing fairly paid. They also allege he wrote off bills for favored clients, spent lavishly on marketing to promote mainly himself, and wasted money on first-class travel that he billed to the firm rather than to his clients.
In legal filings, Hatem has lashed back, arguing that his former partners are trying to humiliate and destroy a firm with which they now compete. He accuses one of them of billing Donovan Hatem for New England Patriots season tickets that went to clients of their new firm, and says the incompetent legal work of two others resulted in a pending malpractice allegation that could cost Donovan Hatem $50,000.
"This is all very much about Mr. Hatem not wanting to pay his partners," said Warren D. Hutchison, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who had worked with Hatem for nearly 20 years. "He really considers nobody of any value other than himself, and he was incapable of recognizing the worth in his former partners."
Hatem's lawyer, Michael E. Mone, did not return a call. But in legal documents, Mone asserts the plaintiffs sued "to embarrass and harm their former partners, particularly Mr. Hatem," and calls their case "an outrageous and salacious effort to leverage a quick payment of money to which they are not entitled."
A call to Hatem was returned by Andrew M. Paven of O'Neill and Associates, a Boston public relations firm. In a statement provided by Paven, the firm described the suit as "baseless and defamatory."
Donovan Hatem was established in 2001 by John A. Donovan Jr., who died of cancer in 2005, and Hatem, who specializes in representing architects, engineers, construction firms, and the companies that insure them. Both men left the Boston firm Burns & Levinson to launch their practice, taking 38 other Burns & Levinson lawyers - a third of the firm - with them.
Related listings
-
Another law firm surfaces in Rezko case
Headline News 03/04/2008The name of the Bryan Cave law firm has come up in pretrial legal battles in the criminal case against politically connected entrepreneur Antoin "Tony" Rezko.In a footnote to a motion last week seeking to exclude some government evidence against Rezk...
-
Florida health providers refunded $125M
Headline News 03/03/2008The first fully implemented year of Medicare's recovery audit contractors in Florida was a costly one for health care providers. They returned nearly $125 million to the government last year, a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid showed. ...
-
Law Firms Follow Banks to the Persian Gulf
Headline News 02/29/2008At Latham & Watkins, the international law firm, William H. Voge is the resident whiz on Dubai. And Abu Dhabi. And Qatar. Mr. Voge, who heads the finance practice, can recite when each of the firm's investment banking clients opened offices in th...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.