{"id":618,"date":"2011-10-21T18:53:26","date_gmt":"2011-10-21T18:53:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/"},"modified":"2011-10-21T18:53:26","modified_gmt":"2011-10-21T18:53:26","slug":"ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hackett<\/em>, 129 Ohio St.3d 186, 950 N.E.2d 969, 2011-Ohio-3096 (Ohio June 30, 2011), illustrates how many jurisdictions will refuse to enforce covenants restricting competition against attorneys on public policy grounds.<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Hackett, <\/em>a bar complaint was filed against an attorney charging that he offered and participated in an employment agreement that restricts the right of another lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship.\u00a0 The complaint also charged that the agreement provides for an illegal or clearly excessive fee.<\/p>\n<p>The basis of the complaint was an agreement the attorney entered into with his associate.\u00a0 That agreement stated upon his termination, the associate would no longer continue to represent or attempt to represent clients of the firm whose claims had been assigned to the associate for representation.\u00a0 The agreement provided that if the client chose to leave the attorney\u2019s firm and thereafter be represented by the associate, the associate would pay the attorney\u2019s firm 95% of any attorney\u2019s fees generated by that case, based upon a 33.3% contingent fee agreement.\u00a0 The attorney had used the same form employment agreement when he hired another associate.<\/p>\n<p>Before the Cincinnati Bar Association filed a bar complaint, the attorney had filed a lawsuit against the former associate seeking to recover a fee pursuant to the employment agreement.\u00a0 The fee dispute arose when, prior to the associate\u2019s resignation, he had executed a contingency fee agreement on behalf of the firm to represent a client in a personal injury matter.\u00a0 After the associate left the firm, the client advised the attorney that he had decided to retain the associate to handle his case. \u00a0\u00a0When the attorney learned that that the client\u2019s case had been settled and that the settlement check had been sent to his former associate, the attorney filed suit to enforce the employment agreement and recover the fee.<\/p>\n<p>The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that the employment agreement violated Ohio\u2019s public policy favoring a client\u2019s freedom to choose a lawyer.\u00a0 The trial court also observed that the employment agreement may violate provisions of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.<\/p>\n<p>Reviewing the Board of Commissioners\u2019 recommendations with respect to the Cincinnati Bar Association\u2019s bar complaint against the attorney, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the employment agreement and the attorney\u2019s conduct <em>did<\/em> violate the rule prohibiting a lawyer from offering an employment agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship.\u00a0 The Ohio Supreme Court also found that the employment agreement violated the rule prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee.<\/p>\n<p>The Ohio Supreme Court reiterated that a client has the absolute right to discharge an attorney or a law firm at any time, and further noted that this right would be hollow if the discharged attorney could hinder other attorneys from taking the client\u2019s representation if the client so desired.\u00a0 However, given the attorney\u2019s lack of a disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest motive, his cooperation in the proceeding, and evidence of his good character, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that only a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for the misconduct.<\/p>\n<p>This decision reflects the fact that, in most jurisdictions, restrictive covenants in attorneys\u2019 employment agreements are highly frowned upon for public policy reasons.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hackett, 129 Ohio St.3d 186, 950 N.E.2d 969, 2011-Ohio-3096 (Ohio June 30, 2011), illustrates how many jurisdictions will refuse to enforce covenants restricting competition against attorneys on public policy grounds. In Hackett, a bar complaint was filed against an attorney charging that he offered and participated in an employment agreement that [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_mo_disable_npp":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,9],"tags":[25],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hackett, 129 Ohio St.3d 186, 950 N.E.2d 969, 2011-Ohio-3096 (Ohio June 30, 2011), illustrates how many jurisdictions will refuse to enforce covenants restricting competition against attorneys on public policy grounds. In Hackett, a bar complaint was filed against an attorney charging that he offered and participated in an employment agreement that [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-21T18:53:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Neal Weinrich\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Neal Weinrich\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/\",\"name\":\"Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-21T18:53:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-10-21T18:53:26+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1141d79d36ea2384c3448fa7502738c1\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/\",\"name\":\"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\",\"description\":\"A Business Law Firm In Atlanta\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1141d79d36ea2384c3448fa7502738c1\",\"name\":\"Neal Weinrich\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Neal Weinrich\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/author\/neal-weinrich\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","og_description":"Cincinnati Bar Association v. Hackett, 129 Ohio St.3d 186, 950 N.E.2d 969, 2011-Ohio-3096 (Ohio June 30, 2011), illustrates how many jurisdictions will refuse to enforce covenants restricting competition against attorneys on public policy grounds. In Hackett, a bar complaint was filed against an attorney charging that he offered and participated in an employment agreement that [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/","og_site_name":"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","article_published_time":"2011-10-21T18:53:26+00:00","author":"Neal Weinrich","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Neal Weinrich","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/","url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/","name":"Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-21T18:53:26+00:00","dateModified":"2011-10-21T18:53:26+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1141d79d36ea2384c3448fa7502738c1"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-anti-competition-provisions-in-employment-agreement-of-law-firm-associate\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Competition Provisions in Employment Agreement of Law Firm Associate"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/","name":"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","description":"A Business Law Firm In Atlanta","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1141d79d36ea2384c3448fa7502738c1","name":"Neal Weinrich","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Neal Weinrich"},"url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/author\/neal-weinrich\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/618"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=618"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/618\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}