A New York arbitrator has sided with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in a dispute with former Los Angeles partner Michael Perlis, ruling that Perlis is not entitled to retirement benefits under the firm’s partnership agreement because he continues to practice law at a competing firm. The award, which would typically remain private, emerged in court documents filed last week in a related action in New York state court.

To recap the events leading up to arbitrator Charlotte Moses Fischman’s June 18 ruling: Perlis, who moved his securities litigation practice to Locke Lord last July after spending more than two decades with Stroock, sued his former firm in California state court two weeks later, claiming he should still be able to collect benefits under Stroock’s retirement plan. Perlis amended the complaint in September to include allegations that the firm had retaliated against him for, among other things, speaking out about how it handled sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims filed against it. That same month, Stroock argued that in line with the firm’s partnership agreement, the dispute should have been filed in New York and should be arbitrated there. In January, a judge agreed to uphold the arbitration clause. An arbitration hearing took place May 9—without Perlis in attendance—and ended with Fischman fully backing Stroock’s position, but also ordering Perlis to pay the firm $163,643 in attorney’s fees.

Reached Monday, Perlis contended that he informed Stroock he no longer wanted to pursue the claim after he successfully asked that his Los Angeles complaint be dismissed in February, but that the firm proceeded with the arbitration anyway. (In her ruling, Fischman makes reference to a February 17 letter from Perlis’s lawyer that says “since there are no disputes pending, there is no need for arbitration.” Separate court filings submitted by Stroock claim that Perlis had “in fact through counsel stated his intent to initiate further legal proceedings.”)

“Stroock is simply pursuing a nonexistent claim, then trying to seek attorney’s fees for litigating against a nonclaim,” Perlis says. “I initially told them I thought I was entitled to benefits. Then I said to myself, ‘I’m going to move forward. . . .’ If Stroock wants to live in the past, they can do so.”

Stroock co–managing partner Stuart Coleman declined to comment when contacted Monday by The Am Law Daily.

The arbitration award—originally reported by law360—was one of several documents filed Wednesday by Stroock in the New York action it filed to compel arbitration. The firm is now asking New York state court judge Melvin Schweitzer to help it enforce Fischman’s ruling and collect a minimum of $261,064 the firm says it spent handling Perlis’s initial complaint and a second California suit fighting the arbitration, on top of its fees related to the arbitration. (Interestingly, the Wednesday filings, submitted by Stroock’s counsel at Proskauer Rose, also request that information in the case be sealed.) As part of the fee request, Stroock submitted detailed bills from Proskauer, which record rates for labor and employment partner Bettina Plevan—who is often called upon to defend law firms— at both $975 and $1,025 an hour.

Fischman’s 19-page award outlines Perlis’s background with Stroock as well as the pertinent aspects of the firm’s partnership agreement. That agreement dictates that partners retiring after age 59-1/2 receive lifetime benefits, a structure “intended to provide an incentive for partners to finish their legal careers with the Firm and to transition clients.” Perlis’s move to Locke Lord along with four other Stroock lawyers does not qualify as retiring, according to Fischman. (Partners also move to “pension partner” status by reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70, according to the firm’s partnership agreement.)

Perlis, Fischman notes, served in several leadership roles during his time at Stroock, helping lead the Los Angeles office, sitting on the firm’s executive committee from 2000 to 2011, and serving on its compensation committee from 2004 to 2008.

The award states that over the past five years, Perlis received more compensation than his billings warranted compared to others at the firm, though it does not offer any details. His practice had decreased in profitability in part, Fischman’s ruling says, because he began to spend more time on director and officer insurance carrier matters, “which bill at lower attorney rates than other securities or commercial litigation work.” The firm spoke to him about how to increase the profitability of his practice, and “did not want Perlis to leave,” according to the award.

Perlis said Monday that his practice has increased by 25 percent since the move.

As to what happens next, Perlis says he and his lawyer, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck shareholder Barry Langberg, will likely resist the demand for attorney’s fees. He has until July 17 to file his response, according to a Monday filing.