The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct™ is a trusted resource that helps attorneys understand cases and decisions that directly impacts their work, practice ethically, and...
A lawyer got disciplined in Ohio July 6 for using the name of a sitting Ohio Supreme Court justice in his law firm name ( Ashtabula Cty. Bar Ass’n v. Brown , 2017 BL 231995, Ohio, No. 2016-1147, 7/6/17 ).
The case spotlights apparent top-level unawareness of the ethics rules governing law firm names. The lawyer got permission from his ex-partner, Justice William O’Neill, before using his name, according to the per curiam opinion.
After Thomas C. Brown’s admission to the Ohio bar in 1981, he and O’Neill practiced together at the O’Neill & Brown Law Office until 1997.
In July 2015 Brown began using their old firm name with O’Neill’s consent. He installed a sign outside his office touting it as “ONeill & Brown Law Office (EST 1981),” and he began using business cards bearing the firm name “O’Neill & Brown Law Office.”
When the bar association in Ashtabula County notified O’Neill that the sign violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, he told Brown to remove his name.
O’Neill became an Ohio Supreme Court justice in 2013. Before that, he was an Ohio appeals court judge from 1997 until 2007. He didn’t participate in the disciplinary case against his former partner.
The court held that Brown’s use of O’Neill’s name in his firm name violated Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communication about lawyer or lawyer’s services), Rule 7.5(a) (false or misleading firm name), and Rule 7.5(c) (using name of lawyer who holds public office in law firm’s name while lawyer isn’t practicing with firm).
However, the court split 4-3 on what sanction to impose, as well as what difference it made that Brown got O’Neill’s permission.
The four-member majority—Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Judith L. French, Judge Tim McCormack, sitting by designation for O’Neill, and Justice R. Patrick DeWine—found that it would be too lenient to impose a six-month stayed suspension, as recommended by the court’s professional conduct board.
The majority acknowledged that the board found several mitigating factors, including the fact that O’Neill participated in the decision to use the “O’Neill & Brown Law Office” name on the sign. However, it decided that in light of several aggravating factors, Brown should receive a two-year suspension, stayed on condition that he not use the “O’Neill & Brown” firm name.
Brown had a selfish motive for using O’Neill’s name to enhance his own reputation, the majority said. It also cited Brown’s marred disciplinary record, his failure to appreciate the wrongful nature of his conduct, and his continued use of O’Neill’s name for months after getting notice that it might be professional misconduct.
Justice Terrence O’Donnell dissented, saying the appropriate sanction is an indefinite suspension. The fact that Brown obtained consent from O’Neill is an aggravating factor because judges are prohibited from lending their names to law firms, he said.
O’Donnell said that Brown created an appearance of impropriety by representing that he was practicing law in partnership with a sitting justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.
“This deceitful conduct demands a serious sanction involving time out from the practice of law in order to protect the public from being misled about the nature of a professional legal engagement with Brown,” O’Donnell said.
Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justice Justice Patrick F. Fischer joined O’Donnell’s dissent.
Bar Counsel Harold E. Specht Jr., Jefferson, Ohio, represented the Ashtabula County bar association. Thomas Brown, of Geneva, Ohio, appeared pro se.
To contact the reporter on this story: Joan C. Rogers in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: S. Ethan Bowers at firstname.lastname@example.org
Full text at http://src.bna.com/qCP.
Copyright © 2017 American Bar Association and The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)