The plaintiffs brought actions in debt against a lawyer and moved for summary judgment against both the lawyer and the law firm he shared space with, alleging they were partners or that the firm held him out as a partner.
The court granted summary judgment against the lawyer for the unpaid loans.
However, the court dismissed the claims against the law firm, finding that the lawyer was a sole practitioner and not a partner in fact.
Furthermore, while the lawyer may have been held out as a partner, the plaintiffs failed to prove they extended credit in reliance on that representation.
The court granted a 'boomerang' summary judgment dismissing the claims against the law firm despite the lack of a cross-motion.
