Delaware Court Denied Legal Fee Advancement
The Court of Chancery rejected a former general counsel's request for employer-funded legal expenses.
Updated on Sept. 26, 2026 in Financial Planning
Live Poll
Should employees be bound by contractual terms they were previously instructed to draft or eliminate?
The Delaware Court of Chancery denied a request from a former CareOne general counsel for the advancement of his legal fees and expenses. The court ruled that the former employee is not entitled to these payments because he was previously tasked with eliminating that specific right.
Why it matters
This decision reinforces the principle that corporate officers cannot enforce contractual rights they were explicitly ordered to remove. It highlights the legal complications that arise when employment agreements are not updated to reflect past corporate directives.
The ruling centered on an advancement right that the lawyer was directed to remove a full decade ago. The court determined the request contradicted his prior professional instructions.
The players
Delaware Court of Chancery
This is a specialized business court in Delaware known for handling high-stakes corporate litigation and interpreting the state's influential business laws.
CareOne
CareOne is a healthcare organization that initiated the underlying lawsuit against its former general counsel.
The details
The former general counsel sought the advancement of costs after his former employer, CareOne, initiated litigation against him. The court concluded he had failed to execute the mandate to strike the advancement clause from the company's governing documents as instructed.
Timeline
September 25, 2026: The Court of Chancery issued the ruling.
2016: The lawyer was instructed to eliminate the advancement right.
Market Dynamics
This case underscores the evolution of corporate governance enforcement in Delaware, where courts increasingly hold former executives to their past administrative duties. It signals a shift in how legal departments manage the cleanup of legacy contract language within corporate structures.
This ruling highlights the importance of ensuring that corporate bylaws and employment contracts are formally updated after major policy changes. It serves as a reminder to stakeholders that failing to execute administrative directives can lead to significant, unforeseen personal legal costs.
The takeaway
Executives must ensure that administrative tasks assigned by the board are fully executed to avoid future litigation traps. Relying on outdated contract clauses when an explicit instruction to remove them was given is a losing strategy in court.
Further reading
For more on how corporate bylaws impact personal liability, visit the Financial Planning section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Law360.
Live Poll
Should employees be bound by contractual terms they were previously instructed to draft or eliminate?
