it has generally been recognized that the goodwill of a professional partnership cannot be the subject of an involuntary sale or transfer. See Nail, 486 S.W.2d at 763 (and authorities cited therein). Rafati could not compel Salinas to perform the contract to satisfy partnership obligations, nor could the contract be sold to other physicians. Unlike tangible property that may be held in the name of one partner for the partnership, such as title to land, the contract between Salmas and Mercy Hospital was one for personal services to be rendered by Salinas. Given the nature of this contract, its value after dissolution should not be considered in determining Rafati’s share of the partnership assets. See Cofer v. Hearne, 459 S.W.2d 877, 881 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). This case must nevertheless be remanded to
holding that upon dissolution of partnership of attorneys fees collected for work on cases prior to dissolution should be divided among former partners but fees for work done after dissolution went to individual partner who performed the work holding partners of dissolved firm are entitled to share in fees for predissolution cases earned after dissolution even when the client exercises its right to choose an attorney holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work recognizing that the idea bars an award of attorneys fees for work performed subsequent to a settlement offer of all requested relief holding attorneys testimony on all work performed sufficient to support attorneys fees award even though no time records presented