Key Points:
- Clifford Chance is seeking to move a $5.76 million compensation-clawback dispute with former partners Clifford Cone and Michael Sabin from the Southern District of New York to arbitration in Geneva.
- The former partners argue New York law should govern, contending the clawback unlawfully penalises lawyer mobility.
Clifford Chance has asked the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a declaratory-judgment action brought by former partners Clifford Cone and Michael Sabin and compel arbitration in Geneva, Switzerland, over the firm’s attempted recovery of almost $5.76 million in prior compensation.
The firm described the lawsuit as a “transparent attempt to hijack the arbitral process before it even begins,” arguing that the former partners are seeking to have a federal court decide a governing-law issue that should instead be addressed in the parties’ agreed arbitral process.
Cone and Sabin, former co-heads of Clifford Chance’s US funds and investment management practice, left the firm for Sidley Austin in January 2026. They filed suit in the Southern District of New York on 29 June 2026.
The clawback demands
According to the complaint, Clifford Chance global managing partner Charles Adams wrote to the pair in March stating that the firm intended to recoup compensation paid over the preceding three fiscal years:
- Cone: $4,356,966
- Sabin: $1,398,653
- Combined: $5,755,619
The dispute concerns provisions under which the firm says certain partners who leave for a competitor may have prior compensation recalculated as if they held fewer partnership units. The former partners characterise the mechanism as an effort to claw back already-earned and paid compensation after their move to Sidley Austin.
New York law or English law?
Cone and Sabin do not appear to dispute that their conflict with Clifford Chance is subject to the partnership agreements’ alternative-dispute-resolution process. Their federal action instead seeks a declaration that New York law, rather than English law, governs that process and the enforceability of the clawback provisions.news.
They argue that New York law bars law-firm partnership terms that operate as financial penalties or disincentives on lawyers leaving to join competing firms.
That argument is linked to New York Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6(a), which prohibits agreements restricting a lawyer’s right to practise after termination of a professional relationship.news.
Clifford Chance, represented by Proskauer Rose, argues that Cone and Sabin accepted an unambiguous agreement to arbitrate in Geneva and cannot use the federal action to secure an advance ruling on the law the arbitral tribunal should apply. The firm filed its dismissal and arbitration papers on 14 August.news.
Why the dispute matters
The case puts a relatively uncommon feature of global law-firm pay issues into public view, namely the partnership provisions that can materially reduce or recover compensation when an equity partner leaves for a competitor.
Its practical importance lies in the conflict between:
- New York’s strong policy against restrictions on lawyer mobility.
- Global partnership agreements choosing English law and foreign-seated arbitration.
- The threshold procedural question of who decides governing law: a US court or the arbitral tribunal.
The matter is Cone et al. v. Clifford Chance LLP, No. 1:26-cv-05508, in the Southern District of New York.
