Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hackett
950 N.E.2d 969
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent Hackett III entered into employment agreements restricting former associates' representation of clients after termination (premised on 95% fee remittances).
- The agreement was used when hiring at least two associates.
- In 2009 an associate represented a client via respondent’s firm; the client later left and then the associate continued representation.
- Respondent learned in fall 2009 that the client’s case settled and the settlement was paid to the former associate.
- Respondent filed a complaint on Oct. 29, 2009 to enforce the agreement and recover fees; trial court dismissed for policy concerns under Ohio law.
- Board of Commissioners found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 and 5.6 and recommended a sanction; court imposed a public reprimand with costs taxed to respondent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did respondent violate Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 by the fee arrangement? | Bar argues the 95% recovery was illegal/excessive. | Hackett argues the arrangement was not enforceable and should be considered compliant under policy. | Yes, violation established (1.5) noted. |
| Did respondent violate Prof.Cond.R. 5.6 by restricting practice after leaving a firm? | Bar contends the contract unlawfully restricts clients’ freedom to choose counsel. | Hackett contends limitations were permissible in retirement of associates. | Yes, violation established (5.6) and restraint found clearly excessive. |
| What sanction is appropriate given the misconduct? | Bar requests discipline consistent with violations. | Hackett cooperated and had mitigating factors. | Public reprimand appropriate; aggravating factor of selfish motive acknowledged; mitigating factors recognized; costs taxed to respondent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox & Assoc. Co., L.P.A. v. Purdon, 44 Ohio St.3d 69 (1989) (trust and confidence; fiduciary duties to client)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, 80 Ohio St.3d 6 (1997) (professional duty to counsel clients; policies of practice autonomy)
- Reid, Johnson, Downes, Andrachik & Webster v. Lansberry, 68 Ohio St.3d 570 (1994) (client’s absolute right to discharge; limits on post-discharge restraints)