resources were used to secure the contract, the contract was an asset of the partnership and the two partners were required to account to the third for his interest. Id. at 300. Based on a review of these cases and applicable statutes, we conclude that contingency fees realized post-dissolution are assets of the partnership. The contingency fees cases that were brought into E & H during the partnership were obtained with partnership resources. Therefore, they were partnership assets. It does not matter whether the contingency fees were realized at the time of dissolution, because the partnership business had yet to wind up. During that winding up, the partners continued to owe one another a fiduciary duty. Other jurisdictions have 012 WL 503655, at *7 (Colo. Ct.App. Feb. 16, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Frates v. Nichols, 167 So.2d 77, 82
holding that the mediators law firm was disqualified from representing one of the parties from the mediation holding that letters from insureds attorney to accounting firm not privileged under the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the communication and compelling production holding that even assuming that the court recognized the allegaert exception that it would not apply where a firm that previously represented a corporation then represented a former director and officer of the corporation against the corporation because the duty of loyalty that the firm owes the corporation would go unprotected where the firm switches sides against its former client holding an attorney who carries on representation of an existing case after a law firm dissolves does so on the firms behalf and any income derived from the case belongs to the dissolved firm holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case