Duane Morris Partner Clash Escalates in Non-Equity Status Suit

The bad blood between Duane Morris and a partner suing the law firm is getting worse as they fight over which court should hear the case.

The firm has perpetrated a “massive tax fraud” by classifying some of its lawyers as “non-equity partners,” Meagan Garland said again in late Friday court filing.

Garland is suing Duane Morris, alleging the firm intentionally misclassified her and other attorneys to reduce business and tax expenses. A Black woman, she also accuses Duane Morris of paying women and minorities less than their male, white counterparts.

Duane Morris wants the suit moved from Oakland, California, to San Diego, where Garland works. The firm said in its own court filing that it plans to call unnamed partners also based in San Diego, who will testify that Garland performed poorly on the job and took a prolonged medical leave.

Garland has responded by accusing the firm of a “smear campaign.”

The suit is one of several cases, including three this year, scrutinizing Big Law’s use of the partner title for lawyers earning a fixed income, rather than a share of profits. It’s unique because Garland is suing Duane Morris while continuing to work at the firm.

Garland wants a court to rule that Duane Morris violated state law by classifying non-equity partners as partners instead of employees. That would undermine the non-equity partner designation, now widely used across major law firms.

She filed the complaint in July in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Garland is seeking to sue on behalf of a class of certain current and former Duane Morris non-equity partners.

The large law firm has more than 900 lawyers in offices around the globe, according to its website. It reported nearly $650 million in gross revenue last year, data from The American Lawyer show.

The firm has taken an aggressive defense posture after retaining a team from Proskauer Rose, another large firm. Proskauer’s employment department has represented several law firms in discrimination litigation with partners.

The legal team includes Anthony Oncidi, co-chair of Proskauer’s labor department, who also represents Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith in litigation with a former partner over pay discrimination. Proskauer lawyers also represented New York’s Chadbourne & Parke when the firm was sued for discrimination by a female partner.

Representatives for Duane Morris and the firm’s lawyers at Proskauer declined requests for comment. Duane Morris said after the suit was filed that it “strongly” disagreed with the allegations and would “vigorously” fight them in court.

The firm told the court in an Aug. 29 filing that seven anonymous Duane Morris partners are prepared to testify about Garland’s performance issues, which “amply justify her comparative compensation.”

Some of the unnamed partners have personal knowledge that firm clients refused to work with Garland because of unresponsiveness, according to Duane Morris. Others can testify to Garland’s overbilling and missed deadlines, the firm said in the court filing.

They include “a male partner in the San Diego office to whom Garland apparently compared herself in contending Duane Morris underpaid her, who has personal knowledge of his superior performance,” the firm said.

Partners can attest that Garland took “frivolous” positions in cases resulting in sanctions sought against the firm and her client, according to the motion. Several clients complained about Garland’s lack of responsiveness and work product and refused to continue to work with her, according to the motion.

The firm also referenced her “alleged disabilities” in the court filing.

Garland’s legal team called that a “gratuitous” and “egregious,” saying the reference violates her right to privacy under and aren’t relevant to her claims. They also said her personnel file has no mention of any performance issues.

“Duane Morris would lead this Court to believe that its entire defense will be a smear campaign that illegally relies on Ms. Garland’s medical leave as a justification for failing to pay wages for the years that precede it,” Bibi Fell, a lawyer for Garland said in a Sept. 11 court filing.

The case is Garland v. Duane Morris, N.D. Cal., No. 4:24-cv-04639, 9/13/24.