Stephen Wainger is a former partner of the law firm Glasser & Glasser. According to the partnership agreement, a withdrawing partner is entitled to compensation for "any undivided profits of the firm with respect to uncollected fees which were fully earned by the firm prior to the effective date of his withdrawal, but which fees are received by the firm subsequent to such date." Before leaving the firm, Wainger worked on several asbestos compensation cases. After he left the partnership, the cases were settled and the firm received significant profits. Wainger argued that he should be compensated for his work despite the fact that he left the firm before the settlement of the cases. Do you agree? The trial court found that Wainger was entitled only to fees that had been fully earned at the time of his withdrawal. How do you think the court decided the case on appeal?

• Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
• Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
• Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case - be clear.
• Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law

[Wainger v. Glasser & Glasser; 462 S.E.2d 62 (1995).]