The doors of Duane Morris LLP may be polished, but behind them, a storm is brewing. A federal judge has ruled that the prominent U.S. law firm must stand trial over accusations it disguised employees as “partners” in a maneuver that allegedly forced them to shoulder firm expenses without ever letting them taste the profits.
Meagan Garland, once part of the firm’s employment law division, claims she was among a cohort of so-called “non-equity partners” who were, in reality, treated like regular employees—except when it came time to pick up the tax tab. Her lawsuit paints a picture of a structure designed to shift financial burdens away from the firm while withholding the privileges of true partnership.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo—sitting in San Diego—largely cleared the way for the proposed class action, rejecting Duane Morris’s attempt to swat it down. While two minor claims were tossed, Garland now has the green light to revise and reassert them.
Garland’s legal team hailed the decision as a “thoughtful ruling” and signaled readiness to dive into the case’s substance. Duane Morris, for its part, remained silent in public, with a spokesperson declining to comment.
Garland filed the suit last year, alleging that the firm’s internal “promotion” to non-equity partner was a smokescreen. According to her, Duane Morris would stop paying its share of employment taxes and benefits—health, dental, disability—the moment an attorney was given the partner title. Yet these partners could be dismissed at will, held no ownership in the firm, and reaped none of the profits.
And there’s more.
Garland, who is Black, claims this alleged two-tier system was riddled with racial and gender disparities, accusing the firm of paying women and minorities less than white men in equivalent roles.
Duane Morris has pushed back, insisting Garland was a genuine partner, treated lawfully and compensated fairly.
But with the court allowing much of her case to proceed, the spotlight now turns to discovery—and the inner workings of one of America’s better-known law firms.
The battle continues in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, under the case number 3:24-cv-01783.
