Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gracey v. Maddin

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided January 25, 1989Published

1DissentKoch, Judge

This appeal involves the right of a law partnership to include the surname of a retired partner in its firm name after the partner’s death. The majority has determined that the firm cannot continue to use its former partner’s name. I cannot concur.

The majority’s opinion is discordant with the long-standing practice of lawyers in Tennessee. It ignores Tenn.S.Ct.R. 8, DR 2-102, and it misapprehends the significance of the dealings between the parties. If permitted to stand, it will open a Pandora’s box, spreading mischief from Mountain City to Memphis. I would hold that a *502lawyer’s consent to…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Crosslin v. AlsupTennessee Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Tennessee Department of Human Services v. VaughnTennessee Supreme Court · 1980
  3. In Re Review of Opinion 475 of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics & DR 2-102(C)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  4. Petition of Tennessee Bar Ass'nTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Slack v. SuddothTennessee Supreme Court · 1899

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API