Hoff v. Mayer, Brown & Platt
Illinois Appellate Court
772 N.E.2d 263 (2002)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
William Hoff (plaintiff) was a partner in the law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt (MBP) (defendant). At age 60, Hoff had worked at MBP for 36 years. Under an MBP plan, Hoff was qualified to receive retirement benefits if he retired. This plan defined retiring as either substantially ceasing the active practice of law on a permanent basis or having MBP determine that any post-retirement legal work was consistent with being retired. Hoff resigned from MBP and founded a new law firm. MBP paid Hoff all other financial benefits and did not contest his ability to work at the new firm. However, MBP determined that Hoff had not retired and refused to pay him retirement benefits. Hoff sued MBP, claiming that MBP’s no-work requirement for providing retirement benefits was an illegal noncompetition requirement. MBP moved to dismiss the claim, and the trial court dismissed it. Hoff appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McBride, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

