391 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1998). The bankruptcy court, identifying the assets of a law firm under the Pennsylvania UPA, looked to general principles of partnership law to hold that the partnership did not end at dissolution, but extended through the winding up period. 227 B.R. at 407. During that period, the partners still owe each other a duty, and must complete the unfinished business of the partnership. Id. at 407-08. In surveying other jurisdictions, the bankruptcy court concluded that post-dissolution proceeds (obtained during the winding up), whether from hourly or contingency fees, are assets of the partnership. Id. at 408. The trial court here also cited Melenyzer v. Tershel, No. 99-5200, 2004 WL 5149401 (C.P. Washington January 2, 2004) ll.Dec. 602, 485 N.E.2d 413 (Ill.App.Ct.1985) (<HOLDING>); Sullivan, Bodney & Hammond v. Bodney, 16
holding same and citing cases holding abuse of discretion is the proper standard for reviewing award of attorney fees in patent cases although questions of law may in some cases be relevant holding that even though the state trial court rendered its judgments in the defendants prior cases on the same day with their sentences to run concurrently the district court did not clearly err in finding that those prior cases were not consolidated for sentencing due to cases separate indictments and judgments and the absence of a consolidation order holding that handling contingency fee cases is part of winding up and fees earned in those cases were partnership assets holding that although not essential to the outcomes of two previous cases the court of appeals should have followed the texas supreme courts statements in those cases