In Re Marriage of Kilbourne
No value can be placed on unpaid contingency fees.
Harmon v. Harmon
Death benefit provision of partnership agreement is properly used to calculate the value of interest in law firm for distribution purposes.
In Re Marriage of Huff
Trial court did not err in using excess earnings method to calculate lawyer’s interest in his law firm, rather than basing the valuation on the terms of the partnership agreement.
Goldstein v. Goldstein
Contingency fees from husband’s law practice are not marital assets as they are too remote, speculative and uncertain.
In Re Marriage of Gunn
Trial court properly rejected valuation by buy/sell agreement and accepted valuation of wife’s expert who averaged net-asset-value and excess-earnings methods.
In the Matter of the Marriage of Follansbee v. Ackerman
No property to consider tax consequences of sale of law practice where husband has no plans to sell his interest for “at least another 15 to 17 years.”
Ford v. Ford
Interest in law firm does not include goodwill as valuation is too speculative.
In Re Marriage of Nichols
Accounts receivable and work in progress must be included in law firm valuation.
In Re Marriage of Nichols
Trial court correctly valued divorcing lawyer’s interest in law firm using formula set out in shareholder’s agreement.
McDiarmid v. McDiarmid
Law firm partnership agreement controls and trial court reversed for assigning value to professional goodwill.