Short answer. Under Civil Code Article 1800, revoking the authority of a partner named as manager in the articles of partnership requires the vote of partners representing the controlling interest. The power cannot be taken away arbitrarily — just or lawful cause is also required for revocation to be valid.
What the law says
The partner who has been appointed manager in the articles of partnership may execute all acts of administration despite the opposition of his partners, unless he should act in bad faith; and his power is irrevocable without just or lawful cause. The vote of the partners representing the controlling interest shall be necessary for such revocation of power. A power granted after the partnership has been constituted may be revoked at any time.
Civil Code, Article 1800 — Powers of a Managing Partner. Read the full provision →
Why a manager named in the articles is harder to remove
When the partners decide at the outset — in the articles of partnership themselves — to appoint one of them as manager, they are doing more than delegating authority. They are making that appointment a term of the partnership agreement itself. Article 1800 recognises this by making the power irrevocable without just or lawful cause. The managing partner can act over the objection of other partners, unless he is acting in bad faith. This protection is built into the structure of the partnership from the start, which is why removing it requires more than a simple majority vote.
The controlling-interest vote
Article 1800 requires the vote of the partners representing the controlling interest to revoke the managing partner's authority. 'Controlling interest' in this context refers to the majority of the capital or interest in the partnership, not merely a headcount of individual partners. Two partners holding 60 percent of the partnership interest outweigh three partners holding the remaining 40 percent. This protects the managing partner from being ousted by partners with smaller stakes who outnumber but do not outweigh those who hold the dominant share of the enterprise.
Just or lawful cause is still required
Even if the partners representing the controlling interest vote to remove the managing partner, the revocation must be supported by just or lawful cause. The article does not define what constitutes just cause, but the concept encompasses conduct inconsistent with the managing partner's duties — mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith dealings, or other serious grounds. A vote driven purely by personal conflict or strategic disagreement, without an objective basis in the managing partner's conduct, could be challenged as an improper revocation. The managing partner does not simply lose the role whenever the majority decides it is inconvenient.
Powers granted after the partnership is formed
Article 1800 draws an important distinction: a management power granted after the partnership has been constituted may be revoked at any time, without the need for just cause or a controlling-interest vote. This is because a post-formation appointment is not embedded in the articles — it is a later, more ordinary delegation of authority that the partners can withdraw as they see fit. If there is any doubt whether a managing partner's appointment was part of the original articles or a later grant, that question matters enormously for determining how difficult removal will be.