The District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended a 90-day suspension for the founding partners of the law firm Tully Rinckey PLLC, Mathew B. Tully and Gregory T. Rinckey, citing ethical misconduct. The board’s recommendation comes after a review of the firm’s employment and separation agreements, which included provisions for liquidated damages for attorneys who left the firm early.
The board’s opinion detailed several contract terms that have since been discontinued. These provisions, which applied to lawyers in the firm’s Washington, D.C., office, imposed significant penalties on departing attorneys. Specifically, the contracts included:
- Liquidated Damages: Attorneys who left before their employment agreement ended could be required to pay up to $50,000 in liquidated damages. In some instances, the firm sought hundreds of thousands of dollars. The board stated that these amounts were “untethered to actual damages” the firm incurred from a lawyer’s departure.
- “Referral Fees”: Some agreements stipulated that if a departing lawyer took a Tully Rinckey client, they had to pay “referral fees” to the firm, amounting to a portion of the billings at their new practice.
- Attorney Fees: Certain agreements also required departing lawyers to pay the firm’s legal fees and costs for enforcing the employment contracts, even if the firm wasn’t successful.
- Cooperation Ban: The agreements also banned departing lawyers from voluntarily participating in any investigations or other proceedings related to firm matters.
The board concluded that Tully and Rinckey violated several rules of professional conduct, including:
- Rule 5.6(a): This rule prohibits agreements that restrict a lawyer’s right to practice after leaving a firm. The board found that the contract’s liquidated damages provisions and other clauses effectively restricted lawyers’ professional autonomy and clients’ freedom to choose their counsel.
- Rule 8.4(a) and 8.4(d): These rules prohibit attempts to violate the rules of professional conduct and engaging in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. The board cited the “expansive language” in the separation agreements that seemed to discourage employees from cooperating with investigations by disciplinary authorities.
The board’s opinion described a highly controlled work environment in the firm’s D.C. office. One former lawyer called the oversight “overwhelming and oppressive.” This included video surveillance of public areas and monitoring of attorneys’ use of office computers. In one instance, Mr. Tully reportedly called a lawyer to tell him to tuck in his shirt.
Additional Reading
Firm founders who sought liquidated damages for early attorney exits should be suspended, conduct board says, ABA Journal (August 4, 2025)
Image Credit: Merch Hub / Shutterstock.com