Youngstown Daily Legal News

Judges: Rules of conduct outweigh license agreement

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 19, 2012

A three-judge appellate panel recently ruled that the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct outweighed a license agreement in which a firm was permitted to continue using a member’s name after he left the business.

The 10th District Court of Appeals rejected Cecil and Geiser’s argument that Ronald Plymale had allowed it to use his name as its firm name and that he could not revoke that privilege under their license agreement. The panel maintained that the rules of professional conduct protected Plymale’s right to continue practicing law under his own name.

“There is no suggestion that Plymale violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. He had the right to use those rules to his benefit, as indeed can the members of Cecil and Geiser,” 10th District Judge Gary Tyack wrote for the court.

Case summary states that Plymale was a member of The Plymale Partnership LLP, which heavily invested in advertising its legal services.

Plymale eventually left the firm and relocated to Florida, where he continued to practice law. Before he left The Plymale Partnership, the other members of the firm paid him “large sums of money” for his interest in the firm and the continued use of his name, according to case summary.

Years later, Plymale returned to Ohio and resumed practicing law. Upon doing so, he demanded that his former firm stop using his name. The Plymale Partnership then became Cecil and Geiser and sued Plymale for recovery.

A trial court initially issued a judgment against Plymale, but not against his new firm. Both parties appealed and the appellate panel remanded the case for the trial court to address the license agreement and its enforceability in light of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Under this analysis, the trial court ruled in favor of Plymale and Cecil and Geiser appealed to the 10th District.

“The practice of law in Ohio is governed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court has enacted the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct to give guidance to attorneys practicing law in Ohio and to provide clarity to attorneys engaged in that practice,” Tyack stated.

On review, the 10th District held that all parties involved in the case were aware of their ongoing obligation to operate under the professional conduct rules. It found that Plymale’s new firm did not exist when the license agreement was formed, it was not a party to it, and it was therefore not bound by it.

The panel further determined that Plymale had a right to invoke the professional conduct rules and the trial court was not wrong to allow him to do so.

“The fact that the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct allowed him to do what he did cannot be a basis for financial liability, independent of other theories of liability,” Tyack wrote.

Cecil and Geiser argued that the rules include a phrase allowing agreements “concerning benefits upon retirement.”

The appellate judges, however, disagreed after finding that Plymale had not stopped practicing law when he moved to Florida.

“Further, nothing in the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct prevents a lawyer from resuming the practice of law after a span of years. The trial court correctly noted that the license agreement was not a true retirement plan, but more like a covenant not to compete,” Tyack continued.

They also held that without disciplinary proceedings, an attorney cannot be forced to retire.

“All three assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.”

Fellow 10th District judges Lisa Sadler and Judith French joined Tyack to form the majority.

The case is cited Cecil and Geiser LLP v. Plymale, case No. 2012-Ohio-5861.

[Back]