|
McCormack v.
Zimmerman, 18 Mass. L. Rep. 589, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS
2
(January 3, 2005) (Van Gestel, J.). |
|
A lawyer filed suit against partners of
his law firm claiming that they had “de-equitized” him.
He sought to stay arbitration and enjoin the defendants
from terminating his current position or diminishing his
compensation and benefits. The defendants moved to
impound the pleadings.
The Court denied plaintiff’s motion to
stay arbitration. In a now familiar-sounding opinion, it
stressed the strong presumption in favor of arbitration.
“Courts have very limited roles to play in matters in
arbitration.” Id. at 10. Rather than stay the
arbitration, the Court stayed the litigation.
The Court also denied the motion for a
|
|
preliminary injunction. Its chief concern
was the fate of clients in the midst of any upheaval.
The Court informed the parties that it was “always
available, on very short notice” to act if it became
necessary. Id. at *14. In the meantime, the Court
admonished the parties to strictly comply with their
significant duties to clients and the profession.
The Court also denied the defendants’
motion to impound because no good cause had been shown
to overcome the preference for public access. The Court
emphasized that “[t]he public has a significant interest
and stake in knowing how members of this great
profession act in their professional capacities.”
Id. at *20.
 |
