Opinion
0103000/2007.
August 1, 2007.
By Order to Show Cause, dated March 7, 2007, Plaintiff sought various relief including an injunction prohibiting Defendants from contacting "clients of the plaintiff law firm," an order invalidating unspecified substitution of attorney forms, damages for Defendant Platta's alleged violations of an employment agreement and a declaration regarding the fees that Plaintiff is allegedly entitled to in connection with unspecified clients. By Decision and Order, dated April 9, 2007, the Court dissolved the Temporary Restraining Order previously agreed to by the parties (the Prior Decision). Defendant Platta opposes this motion and denies that he solicited Plaintiff's clients in violation of an employment agreement.
The motion is denied. With respect to a permanent injunction, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or that the balance of the equities lie in its favor. As noted in the Prior Decision, apparently all and/or most of the clients at issue have signed consent to change attorney forms or have otherwise indicated an intention to seek legal assistance from Defendant Platta, and not Plaintiff. An injunction would improperly interfere with the relationship between Platta and those individuals (see Matter of Silverberg v Schwartz, 75 AD2d 817 [2nd Dept 1980]). Moreover, as previously noted, the issue of whether Defendants used unlawful means to induce termination of the Plaintiff's relationship with unspecified clients is, at this point, conclusory (see Koeppel v Schroder, 122 AD2d 780 [2nd Dept 1986] [trial court improperly granted an injunction preventing former partners from contacting persons who had active legal matters with law firm because law firm failed to show that former partners used wrongful means to interfere with those relationships]). Nor has Plaintiff provided any support for the Court's power to invalidate any consent to change attorney forms or otherwise interfere with the clients' right to chose their own attorney (id. at 782 ["a client has an absolute right on public policy grounds to terminate the attorney-client relationship. . . Thus, an attorney's retainer agreement is a contract which is terminable at will"]). As to the allegation of irreparable harm, Plaintiff has not demonstrated why money damages would not suffice. Further, Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought because generally, the court cannot grant the ultimate relief under the guise of a preliminary injunction (see SportsChannel Am. Assocs, v Natl. Hockey League, 186 AD2d 417, 418 [1st Dept 1992]). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a declaration regarding the amount of fees it is purportedly owed under an employment agreement, the underlying action does not seek such relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated why it can circumvent the litigation process by essentially moving for summary judgment on its claims prior to any discovery, in the guise of this motion for an injunction.
It is hereby
ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause, dated March 7, 2007 is denied.
This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.