S.W.2d at 763. Nevertheless, there may be goodwill in a professional partnership that is separate from the skills or attributes of an individual member. Id, at 764. A case illustrating such a situation is Geesbreght v. Geesbreght, 570 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1978, writ dism’d), in which a physician owned shares in a professional corporation that provided emergency-room physicians to hospitals. The corporation had contracts with several hospitals and employed about fifty to one hundred physicians on a part-time basis and ten on a full-time basis to satisfy those contracts. The court of appeals drew a distinction between the goodwill built up by the physician personally at the hospital at which he practiced and the corporati S.2d 364, 367-368, 672 N.E.2d 589, 592-93 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Geesbreght and Nail illustrate the
holding that the unauthorized practice of law constitutes violation of code holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision holding that punitive damages award against vicariously liable law firm was not excessive in part because the award is proportionate to the law firms financial position holding that law firms partnership agreement and history of operations precluded recovery of goodwill upon dissolution but recognizing that blanket prohibition against goodwill of a law firm has been superseded by the economic realities of the contemporary practice of law