When is an Attorney in Conflict of Interest

Many times client ask an attorney or his firm to represent them in a legal dispute bewteen fellow shareholders or partners where the attorney or firm had rendered legal representation in the past.

While the general ethical rule states that an attorney may not represent a party if there the possibility of a conflict of interest, the issue is a bit more complicated. The complication arises in defining the term “conflict of interest.”

Ohio has adopted the three-part test for disqualification of counsel due to a conflict of interest set forth in Dana Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. Of N. Ohio., (C.A.6, 1990), 900 F.2d 882. Also see Morgan v. N. Coast Cable Co. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 156, 586 N.E.2d 88; Hollis v. Hollis (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 481, 485, 706 N.E.2d 798; Kitts v. U.S. Health Corp. of S. Ohio (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 271, 275, 646 N.E.2d 555. The test is as follows:

(1) a past attorney-client relationship must have existed between the party seeking disqualification and the attorney he or she wishes to disqualify;

(2) the subject matter of the past relationship must have been substantially related to the present case; and

(3) the attorney must have acquired confidential information from the party seeking disqualification.

In determining whether corporate counsel should be disqualified from representing any of the corporation's officers in a later suit, the trial court is required to find all three factors enumerated in the Dana test before ordering disqualification, Legal Aid Soc. of Cleveland v. W & D Partners I, L.L.C., 162 Ohio App.3d 682, 2005 Ohio 4130, 834 N.E.2d 850.

Even though an attorney has served as counsel for a corporation, Ohio does not require the immediate disqualification of the attorney from serving as personal counsel for a shareholder or officer in a suit involving the corporation, Phillips v. Haidet (1997), 119 Ohio App.3d 322, 325, 695 N.E.2d 292; A.G. Financial, Inc. v. LaSalla, Cuyahoga App. No. 84880, 2005 Ohio 1504; Maloof v. Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, Cuyahoga App. No. 84006, 2004 Ohio 6285.

In Ohio, pursuant to Rule 1.13(a) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, corporate counsel represents the interests of the corporation and not those of individual officers:

"(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its constituents. A lawyer employed or retained by an organization owes allegiance to the organization and not to any constituent or other person connected with the organization. The constituents of an organization include its owners and its duly authorized officers, directors, trustees, and employees."

Therefore, in order for there to be a conflict of interest the following must be proven:

1. There was a past attorney-client relationship between the lawyer and the individual. Just because an attorney represented the corporation, that does not assume he presented the individual shareholders or partners too. Even if the attorney met with the members of a closely held corporation to discuss corporate business does not, in and of itself, arise to an attorney-client relationship with the individual shareholder or partner, and

2. Even if there was an attorney-client relationship, the subject matter of that relationship must be related to the present case for which the attorney is being retained, and

3. The attorney must have acquired confidential information from the party.

Note, all three of these requirements must be met before the conflict will arise. They are not mutually exclusive but a three-part requisite.

The “Statutes of Limitation”

From time to time, I receive telephone calls from clients who want to know how long they have to take action against someone. Ohio, as do all states, set time limitations by which you must file legal action. This is known in legal jargon as the “Statute of Limitations.” While this term is somewhat descriptive, it fails to completely describe some of the dates of which you should be aware. The Ohio Revised Code provide a series of statutes for this purpose. There are some dates set forth by which you must file an action. There are other dates that are dates of expiration. Allow me to explain.

Statute of Limitations

The State of Ohio sets, by statute, time limits by which you must file an action. Failure to file by that time nullifies any action. Some of the important dates are:

• Injury to person - If you or your employee is hurt in some type of accident (other than those injuries covered by statute such as injuries on the job) you have two years from the time you incurred the injury or discovered the injury. For example, if you are injured in an automobile accident, you have two years to file an action.

• Professional Malpractice - If you were injured as a result of negligence by a professional, you have one year from the time or the injury or when you discovered the injury to file an action. Giving a medical professional the appropriate notice can extend the time limit by 180 days in certain circumstances. If, for example, you incur bodily injury due to a doctor’s negligence and do not discover that injury for some time, you, generally, have one year from the date you discovered that injury to file an action.

• Contracts - If the contract is in writing, you have 15 years to file an action for breach of contract. If the contract was not in writing (known as an “oral contract”), you have only 6 years. Remember my adage - Always get it in writing!

• Collection on Account - If you keep running accounts, you have 6 years to file an action. You will note this is the same as your time limit for an oral contract. Therefore, it is important to obtain a written contract setting balance limits, guarantees or other issues relating to the sales of goods and/or services.

• Dishonored checks and drafts - There is a three year limitation. Note, this does not apply to the bank where you presented the check or the bank upon which the check was drawn. The bank’s liability is set forth by separate statute that outlines limitations on their liability.

• Judgments - Judgments are valid for 21 years.

• Embezzled funds - Although any resolution of criminal action may require reimbursement, the civil limitation is one year.

Federal statutes also contain limitations relating to issues involving federal projects, jobs and other issues.

Time Limits

While not exactly statutes of limitation, Ohio and the US Government do put limitations on the enforcement of certain liens and judgment.

• Mortgages - A mortgage that has not been released but has been of record for 21 years past it due date is deemed to be of no effect.

• Mechanic’s Lien - This type of lien is valid for 6 years. The lien is not renewable. Therefore, you must take action to foreclose within 6 years or lose your rights related to that realty.

• Judgment Liens - A judgement lien must be renewed every 5 years. This lien will only be enforceable as long as the judgment is in force. Note, although a judgment is valid for 21 years, a lien recorded pursuant to that judgment must be renewed every 5 years.

• Federal Tax Liens - This type of lien must be renewed every 10 years. Note, this type of lien attaches to after acquired property. A federal tax lien runs with the person, not the land. Therefore, if a federal tax lien is placed upon you and you subsequently purchase realty, that lien attaches to the newly acquired property.

• Federal Judgment Lien - This lien is effective for 20 years and is renewable.

• Ohio State Liens - This type of lien is valid for 15 years and is renewable if the renewal is filed within 6 months of the expiration of the lien.

• Condominium Lien - Liens by condominium association for CAM or other charges are valid for 5 years unless renewed prior to expiration.

• Child Support Lien - Liens upon property resulting from support issues have no expiration date and attach to after acquired property.

• UCC Financing Statements - Also known as “chattel mortgages,” these are valid for 5 years unless renewed prior to expiration or the term of the mortgage if filed as security along with the mortgage.

Also note that dower rights (rights of a spouse relating to property owned by the other spouse) attach to all property owned by a husband or wife. Also be aware that various state and federal laws may alter these date limitations in specific instances such as workers compensation, subcontractor rights on federal projects, etc.

Restrictive Covenants in Employment Contracts

A recent Ohio case brought to mind the ever changing status of covenants not to compete. The case, Murray v. Accounting Center & Tax Services, Inc., while not the most controversial or ground breaking case, does evoke thought regarding the tentative nature of covenants not to compete in employment contracts.

Murray v. Accounting Center & Tax Services, Inc.

The case involves an accountant who was employed by the bookkeeping service. She had signed a covenant not to compete for a period of two years after her termination. Other facts pertinent to the case were that: 1) She was a bookkeeper and had a private practice providing tax return services prior to her employment, and 2) the agreement was signed AFTER she was employed.

Consideration

Historically, Ohio courts were resolute that any covenant not to compete had to include additional consideration (usually an increase in pay or bonus) if the covenant was entered into after employment began. If an employer demanded an employee sign such an agreement after their employment began and additional monies or other consideration was not paid, the covenant was unenforceable.

In the last few years this principle has eroded and several courts in Ohio have abandoned this theory of law. The Eighth Appellate District (Cuyahoga County) has completely reversed this historical precedent by stating that continued employment is sufficient consideration for such a covenant. Many other courts have follows this ruling and, today, the courts of Ohio are split regarding this issue. The Ohio Supreme Court has yet to rule on this legal conflict.

Modification by Court Order

The other issue this case presents is the power of the court to limit the restrictions of such covenants. Typically, restrictive covenants set forth limitations as to time and distance. Such restrictions are characterized by such terms as ..”for a period of two years and 500 miles.” This meant the employee could not work in the same field for two years within 500 miles of the employer’s address.

Once again, historically, the courts are allowed to reduce these limitations if they are too restrictive. In the Murphy case, the court stated,

“ A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if the restraint is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee and is not injurious to the public.”

If the covenant not to compete is unreasonable, courts are empowered to modify the terms of the covenant to create reasonable constraints. Some the factors taken into consideration are:

1. Absence or presence of limitations as to time and space.

2. Whether the employee represents the sole contact with the customer.

3. Whether the employee is possessed of confidential information or trade secrets.

4. Whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition.

5. Whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee.

6. Whether the benefit to the employer is disproportionate to the detriment of the employee.

7. Whether the covenant operates as a bar to the employee’s sole means of support.

8. Whether the employee’s talent was developed during the employee’s term of employment.

9. Whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.

For example, lets assume the covenant read,...”shall not be employed as an accountant for a period of two years within 500 miles...” This covenant would obviously be subject to modification. It bars the employee from obtaining any employment in their chosen profession. The benefit to the employer far outweighs the detriment to the employee and, finally, it operates to bar the employee’s sole means of support.

Now, let’s modify the covenant to read, “...shall not be employed as an accountant for a bookkeeping service to widget manufacturers for a period of two years within 50 miles...” The difference is obvious. The covenant does not totally restrict the employee from obtaining employment in their profession and the restriction appears only to protect the vertical market serviced by the employer. In this instance the court might maintain the covenant as is.

Conclusion

Nonetheless, the employer should be mindful of the fluidity of these type of restrictions. They should be aware of where they are located and determine whether the court in their jurisdiction will enforce the covenant and/or modify it. It requires the employer to be somewhat creative in the way the covenant is written. Most importantly it requires the employer to be aware that courts, generally, will side with the employee when the court feels the employer is treating its employee unfairly.