Opinion ID: 853748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Use of Berlon & Timmel

Text: The trial court found that the use of the name Berlon & Timmel by Cincinnati's attorneys was deceptive in violation of Professional Conduct Rule 7.2 because that name implied independence. That Rule provides: [a] lawyer shall not practice under a name that is misleading as to the identity, responsibility, or status of those practicing thereunder, or is otherwise false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive.... The attorneys who work at Berlon & Timmel are employed by Cincinnati and handle only matters for Cincinnati or its policyholders. No one contends that the attorneys perform legal services for the general public. All Berlon & Timmel clients are informed that the attorneys are employed by Cincinnati at the beginning of the representation. Berlon & Timmel's letterhead includes the following language printed along the bottom of the page: Berlon & Timmel is an unincorporated association, not a partnership, of individual licensed attorneys employed by The Cincinnati Insurance Company for the exclusive purpose of representing the Cincinnati Insurance Companies and their policyholders. We agree with the trial court that the use of the name Berlon & Timmel implies independence and that the ordinary person would assume Berlon & Timmel to be some form of outside counsel. As a result it is misleading as to the identity, responsibility, or status of the attorneys practicing under the name. Cincinnati contends that the disclosure language at the bottom of the letterhead is sufficient to dispel any misperception. The trial court noted that not all forms of communication include this disclosure. For example, Berlon & Timmel's phone book listing and door sign use only Berlon & Timmel. The trial court concluded that the size and location of the disclosure was not adequate to negate the deceptiveness resulting from the independence indicated by the firm name, the description on the office door, and the phone book listing. The court also found that the disclaimer was susceptible to the interpretation that [Cincinnati] was not Berlon & Timmel's only employer because it stated that Berlon & Timmel is ... employed by The Cincinnati Insurance Company for the exclusive purpose .... not that Berlon & Timmel is ... exclusively employed by The Cincinnati Insurance Company.... Although similar disclosure language may be sufficient to permit sole practitioners who share office space to adopt a name that may appear as a law firm, [18] it is not sufficient in this case. The use of a firm-like name by a captive firm differs from sole practitioners sharing expenses in two respects. First, it may be read to imply not only a separate legal entity but also an independent status that is not enjoyed by the insurer's employees. There is greater danger for the public to be misled in permitting an insurance company to pass off its legal department as an independent entity. Second, there is at least some practical sense in permitting groups of financially independent lawyers to benefit from the economies of a shared name such as the convenience of one sign on shared offices or the cost savings of one advertisement. Cincinnati provides no rationale for using Berlon & Timmel as a designation for its house counsel. Perhaps the name was adopted without much reflection. In any event, it is difficult to come up with a proper reason for this designation and we conclude that it is improper to create the perception of a law firm at least partially independent of Cincinnati. For these reasons we agree with the Supreme Court of Tennessee that the use of captive law firm names is not permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct. That court reasoned that [t]he representation that the attorney-employee is separate and independent from the employer is, at least, false, misleading and deceptive. It may be fraudulent, depending on the circumstances under which the representation is made. Petition of Youngblood, 895 S.W.2d 322, 331 (Tenn. 1995); see also Supreme Court of Ohio, Board of Comm'rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 95-14 (1995) (attorneys employed by an insurance company may not represent themselves to be outside counsel when they are house counsel). From the record before us, it appears that Berlon & Timmel identifies itself as an aggregate of employee-attorneys at the first contact with the policyholder. If so, the fraud conclusion may well be inappropriate here. Although we agree that the use of a law-firm-like name is improper, the trial court's finding that Cincinnati should close its Indianapolis office was too broad. It is sufficient that the Indiana attorneys practicing under the name Berlon & Timmel take immediate action to discontinue use of Berlon & Timmel or any other name suggesting a legal entity other than Cincinnati to describe their practice as employees of Cincinnati.