What’s in a name?

In the legal context, a business name is much more than the words on a website or the logo on the company merchandise. It is distinct identifier that implicates a company’s potential liability, right to exclusivity, and reputation.

For example, corporations and limited liability companies are required to have certain specific words in their business name, such as “Inc.,” “Company,” “Co.,” “Corp.,” or “LLC.”  This tells the general public how the company is structured and that, absent certain limited exceptions, the owners of the company are not liable for the company’s debts.

However, many companies also have “DBAs” or names under which they “do business as.” These names are not the formal name of the company, can be used to “rebrand” or expand upon an existing corporation or LLC, and generally fall into two categories: trade names and fictitious names. While these two categories are colloquially used interchangeably, they are not the same.

A trade name is “a name used in business or trade to designate the business of the user and to which the user asserts a right to exclusive use.” Ohio Rev. Code 1329.01(A)(1) (emphasis added). A fictitious name is “a name used in business or trade that is fictitious and that the user has not registered or is not entitled to register as a trade name.” Ohio Rev. Code 1329.01(A)(2). A fictitious name cannot include the name of any entity registered under the Ohio Revised Code, such as a corporation, LLC, or registered trade name and does not carry a right of exclusivity.

The incentive for registering a trade name is, typically, the right to exclusive use. Because a fictitious name does not include the right of exclusive use, the primary reason to register a fictitious name, if at all, is to be able to file and maintain a cause of action under the fictitious name. See Ohio Rev. Code 1329.10(B).

To register a trade name, the proposed name cannot include certain words and abbreviations such as “company,” “corp.,” etc., and must be “distinguishable” from any other names within the Ohio Secretary of State’s records. Ohio Rev. Code 1701.05(A). Importantly, a name is not considered “distinguishable” merely because it includes differing punctuation, abbreviations, or a different tense or number of the same word. Ohio Rev. Code 1701.05(B).

If another person or business attempts or purports to use a name that is the same as, or not readily distinguishable from, a registered trade name, such person or business may be liable for trademark infringement.

“[A] party [is] entitled to protection against the use, by another, of its established trade name and trademark in such manner as to mislead the trade and the public to believe that when they are dealing with one, they are dealing with the other, or in such manner that such use results, or may result, in appropriation of the good will, a property right of the other.” Patio Enclosures, Inc. v. Borchert, 8th Dist. No. 40592, 1980 Ohio App. LEXIS 12190, 1980 WL 354611, *2 (May 15, 1980).

“The touchstone of liability [for trademark infringement] is whether the defendant’s use of the disputed mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers regarding the origin of the goods offered by the parties.” Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir. 1997). In determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists, a court will typically weigh the following eight factors: (1) strength of the senior mark, (2) relatedness of the goods or services, (3) similarity of the marks, (4) evidence of actual confusion, (5) marketing channels used, (6) likely degree of purchaser care, (7) the intent of defendant in selecting the mark, and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines. Id., citing Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy, Inc., 670 F.2d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 1982); see also Interactive Prods. Corp. v. a2z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc., 326 F.3d 687, 694 (6th Cir.2003).

The right to trade name exclusivity can be particularly useful in protecting your brand—or, in other words, your company’s reputation. If another company is using a substantially similar name, which is likely to cause confusion among consumers and is, for example, acting illegally, not providing quality products or services, treating its customers poorly, etc., that is not conduct that you want to be confused or associated with your brand. Having the legally protected right to prevent such a bad actor from using your company name (or one that is not readily distinguishable) can be a powerful tool, especially considering the relative simplicity and low cost of registering a trade name.

For assistance forming, restructuring, and/or protecting your business, or to enforce your rights with regard to your company or trade name, please contact Attorney Casey A. Jones at (513) 943-5673 or [email protected].

Americans are generally reluctant to discuss personal financial issues. In many ways, keeping this information private is often a good idea, but there are situations where close family members, and even spouses, are not completely aware of an individual’s assets and debts. Once someone has died, the administration of their estate or trust clearly identifies property that is to be passed on to the decedent’s beneficiaries. Unfortunately, it might be difficult to discern if they received less than they should have as a result of legal malpractice. 

A lawsuit alleges that a Lexington estate planning attorney misappropriated millions of dollars from his clients. The allegations have triggered one of the largest legal practice fraud investigations in Kentucky’s history. According to the accusations, Delmon Lyle McQuinn’s actions might have affected more than 3,000 people. McQuinn died by suicide on March 18, 2025, shortly after the accusations surfaced.

The complaint of 79-year-old Linda Helton claims that McQuinn wrongly diverted millions of dollars from assets owned by her deceased husband. When her attorney reviewed the facts, he says that the discovered a widespread pattern of deception that included fraudulent wills and trusts. Potential forms of misconduct in the McQuinn matter include breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, forgery, theft by deception, intentional infliction of emotional distress and elder abuse.

While not every instance of estate planning malpractice has the dramatic scope of the McQuinn case, a lawyer’s failure to meet professional standards can have a devastating effect on a victim’s family. Even if an attorney is merely careless, rather than dishonest, serious problems might arise. Failure to conform with legal requirements or address concerns about incapacity could lead to the invalidation of testamentary documents. Errors involving commingled accounts or lost papers can also result in squandered funds or unnecessary litigation. 

When lawyers seek to divert client funds for themselves, it can be difficult to identify the misconduct. From the moment you suspect that something might be amiss, you should reach out to a qualified attorney who can assess the situation and investigate whether any improper activity took place. In the meantime, you can request an accounting of trust assets and transactions, as well as any records involving funds under the lawyer’s control. 

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; [email protected]; 513.797.2850.

 

Finney Law Firm is honored to have been recently retained to represent Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Theetge regarding her employment with the City. Chief Theetge is the first female Police Chief in the City’s history, and has an unblemished 35-year record of dedicated and distinguished public service, but was recently placed on paid leave by the City in the wake of several high-profile crimes in the downtown business district. The Chief, whose commonsense efforts to reduce crime in the City were unfortunately ignored by the politicians, is being unfairly used as a scapegoat to distract attention from those who are truly responsible for the problems the City is facing. FLF is committed to getting her back to work, and to hold the City responsible for its unlawful action against her.

Stephen Imm, head of our Labor and Employment Law practice group, is leading the team defending Chief Theetge’s rights. You can view Steve’s recent news conference here.

First, we have cautioned our readers previously about signing contracts with indemnity promises (see here, here, and here ).  They can be open-ended free and open access to your checkbook.  Avoid — like the plague — making promises relating to “indemnify” “defend” and “hold harmless.”

Second, contracts that require you to pay the other’s attorneys fees in the event of a dispute under a contract are a form of indemnity, and many times the drafter wants to make that fee-shifting provision one-sided: If the other party prevails, you have to pay their fees, but if you prevail they don’t have to pay yours. How is that fair?

But something more sinister that, after nearly 40 years of practice, that I am now seeing is this:

Customer shall indemnify, defend, and hold Seller harmless from and against any Losses that arise from or relate to any allegation of facts that, if true, would constitute a breach of Customer’s representations, warranties, or obligations under this Agreement.

and this:

Purchaser agrees to indemnify and defend, covenant not to sue, and hold harmless Seller for (a) performance of Purchaser(s)’s obligations under the Contract Documents or (b) breach of this Agreement by the Purchaser.

These are two separate provisions in two contracts I recently reviewed for clients.  They left me scratching my head.

For the first one, if the other party merely claims (and the claims could be untrue) that my client breached the contract (“facts that, if true, would constitute a breach of Customer’s representations, warranties, or obligations under this Agreement”), then we have to pay their attorneys fees and our own attorneys fees, win or lose for either of us.

In the second one, they were asking my client to pay their attorneys fees if my client failed to perform under the contract.  Essentially, it is one-sided fee shifting, my client has to pay the seller’s attorneys fees (presumably if he prevails), but it is not reciprocal.

Now as to the first example (true, real-life drafting), it is mind blowing.  If there is a suit over the contract, and my client is 100% right, my client still has to pay his own attorneys fees and the seller’s attorneys fees, win or lose.

Now, naturally, one would say that “certainly such a contract provision is not enforceable.”  But that’s not true (or may not be true).

Not that the single largest investment bank in the nation is entitled to any sympathy at all, but in a major fail on the due diligence side, J.P. Morgan Chase purchased a FinTech company called Frank.  Frank offered college students an on-line portal to help with financial aid.  Jamie Diamond, JP Morgan CEO,  was smitten with the company and decided to purchase it to provide access to young depositors and borrowers at the beginning of their banking relationships.  Frank founder and CEO, Charlie Javice, was able to pump up the purchase price by filling her supposed customer database with millions of fake customers (some twelve times their legitimate database size).  In its due diligence process — where JP Morgan Chase had access to the best of the best — the geniuses at JP Morgan Chase somehow failed to detect the fraud before it coughed up a whopping $175 million.

But — unbelievably — to compound its error, JP Morgan Chase’s lawyers, in the Asset Purchase Agreement, agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Frank and Charlie Javice personally for all claims relating to the purchase.

A court found that that promise, first, extended to civil claims (including claims for fraud) brought by JP Morgan Chase against Charlie Javice — it had to pay her attorney fees for the civil suit in which Charlie Javice was found liable for $287 million to JP Morgan Chase.

But then to compound the insult to JP Morgan Chase and its truly terrible attorneys, JP Morgan Chase also had to pay the attorneys fees of Charlie Javice for the defense of criminal charges against her, even though she ultimately was found guilty of criminal fraud.

The final tally of the lawyer fees and expenses for both cases: $115 million!

From this Fortune magazine article: “To put the $115 million figure in perspective, a high-priced lawyer billing $2,000 an hour would have to bill eight hours every day, including weekends and holidays, for nearly 20 years to reach that total.”

So, yeah, be careful when signing an agreement calling for you to “indemnify, defend and hold harmless” the other party, including for their own breach of contract and fraud.  Be forewarned and be very careful.

Epic, ouch!

Disagreements over the nonpayment of construction contracts occur frequently. Contractors who have finished a job based on the expectation that they will receive full payment on completion often find themselves forced to chase property owners for the designated funds. In some cases, the hiring individual or entity will formulate some excuse as to why the agreed-upon amount is not being provided. Other times, no explanation is given for the nonpayment. 

Though some legal protections were in place for construction contractors, a new Kentucky law bolsters their ability to secure the compensation they’ve earned. Under Senate Bill 76, when a contract with a private party is valued at $2 million or more, any portion of the payment that the owner retains subject to project completion must be held in an escrow account. Once the job is done in a satisfactory manner, the owner must provide a release that triggers transfer of the escrow funds to the contractor. Parties to construction contracts are no longer permitted to negotiate away this escrow requirement. 

Likewise, the law bars contract provisions that purport to eliminate or undermine a contractor’s right to seek relief in court or waive other essential rights conferred under Kentucky law. By barring enforcement of these terms, the bill safeguards contractors from being coerced into unfavorable language that could put them at an unfair legal disadvantage. However, the bill does note that binding arbitration can be utilized as alternative dispute resolution method.

Among the law’s most important elements is its protection against clauses that unjustly prevent contractors from recovering costs or damages due to delays—especially when such delays stem from factors within the control of the contracting entity. Many construction law conflicts stem from situations where a project cannot be completed on time. There are numerous reasons why an unforeseen delay could occur, such as weather, regulatory hurdles or bureaucratic inefficiencies. By prohibiting clauses that put the entire economic burden of any delay on the contractor, this provision fosters a more equitable distribution of risk and responsibility.

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; [email protected]; 513.797.2850.

 

You know something bad happened to you, but you may not know who caused it, or other facts and circumstances associated with your claim.  Further, because of private records or uncooperative parties, video of the incident or documents not only advancing your claim, but showing the responsible parties, are not available to you.

There is a powerful solution to this problem, using Ohio Courts’ discovery powers!

Ohio law provides methods in which a party can conduct discovery prior to filing a Complaint to initiate a cause of action.

ORC §2317.48 provides,

When a person claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an action commenced against him, without the discovery of a fact from the adverse party, is unable to file his complaint or answer, he may bring an action for discovery, setting forth in his complaint in the action for discovery the necessity and the grounds for the action, with any interrogatories relating to the subject matter of the discovery that are necessary to procure the discovery sought. Unless a motion to dismiss the action is filed under Civil Rule 12, the complaint shall be fully and directly answered under oath by the defendant. Upon the final disposition of the action, the costs of the action shall be taxed in the manner the court deems equitable.

This statute authorizes the use of pre-suit interrogatories for the limited purpose of discovering facts necessary to file a subsequent complaint. TILR Corp. v. TalentNow, LLC, 2023-Ohio-1345, ¶ 1 (1st App. Dist.). An interrogatory is a simple question in writing relating to a particular subject that may be answered by a brief, categorical statement. Its form and purpose correspond to that of a single question at trial. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. Armco Steel Corp., 27 Ohio Misc. 76, 56 Ohio Op. 2d 295, 271 N.E.2d 877, 1971 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 233 (CP 1971) def Hudson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n Ins. Co., 150 Ohio Misc. 2d 23, 2008 Ohio 7084, 902 N.E.2d 101, 2008 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 303 (Ohio C.P. Oct. 21, 2008).

Thus, ORC §2317.48 is specifically limited to discovery conducted by way of interrogatories and not applicable to the production of any documents. Riverview Health Inst., LLC v. Kral, 2012-Ohio-3502, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3082 (Ohio Ct. App., Montgomery County 2012).

It is available to obtain facts required for pleading, not to obtain evidence for purposes of proof. Further, the statute requires more than a mere possibility of a cause of action. Marsalis v. Wilson, 2002-Ohio-5534, 149 Ohio App. 3d 637, 778 N.E.2d 612, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 5542 (Ohio Ct. App., Champaign County 2002).

Ohio Civ. R. 34(D) further provides a method for a party to obtain specific documents from another party, providing, in part:

(D) Prior to filing of action.

(1) Subject to the scope of discovery provisions of Civ.R. 26(B) and 45(F), a person who claims to have a potential cause of action may file a petition to obtain discovery as provided in this rule. Prior to filing a petition for discovery, the person seeking discovery shall make reasonable efforts to obtain voluntarily the information from the person from whom the discovery is sought.

The petition must provide a statement of the subject matter of the potential cause of action and the party’s interest in it, a statement of the efforts made by the party to obtain voluntarily the information from the person from whom the discovery is sought, a description of the information sought to be discovered and the names and addresses of any person the party expects will be an adverse party in the potential action. Oh. Civ. R. 34(D)(1).

Under Civ. R. 34(D)(3), the Court will authorize the party to obtain the requested discovery if the court finds the discovery is necessary to ascertain the identity of a potential adverse party, the petitioner is otherwise unable to bring the contemplated action and the party made reasonable efforts to obtain voluntarily the information from the person from whom the discovery is sought. Thus, pre-suit document requests must assist in the identification of a potential adverse party. Civ.R. 34(D)(3)(a). TILR Corp. v. TalentNow, LLC, 2023-Ohio-1345, ¶ 1 (1st App. Dist.). Civ.R. 34(D) is designed to avoid needlessly joining as defendants non-liable parties who may have valuable information. Id.

Thus, prior to filing a Complaint, Ohio law provides avenues for parties to submit interrogatories for the limited purpose of discovering facts necessary to file a subsequent complaint and request documents if necessary to ascertain the identity of a potential adverse party.

To advance pre-suit discovery for your Ohio claim, please contact Julie Gugino (513.943.5669).

For corporate executives and investors, I encourage them to look past their pursuit of the “upside” of their business (essentially, buying low and selling high), to also carefully protect their “downsides,” both predictable and seemingly out-of-the-blue unexpected liabilities: an employee or tenant or customer personal injury, a class-action lawsuit, a theft of funds resulting in insolvency, or just a change of fortunes in our dynamic economy and regulatory and tariff environment.

In this blog entry, we explore three tips as you are forming and operating your business to cover your downside: (a) good practices, (b) good insurance and (c) a corporate form.  In these two blog entries (here and here), we address how to operate that corporate form to maximize the value of the “corporate veil” protection.

And one of broad strokes in those articles is preventing liability from passing through to shareholders (in corporation) or members (in limited liability companies) personally.  The idea is that liability stays within the corporate form, and personal assets are isolated from rapacious lawyers and plaintiffs.

However, if you as a company owner or investor have all of your eggs in a single “corporate” basket, even if these strategies work, everything in that basket could possibly be lost in that catastrophic lawsuit (outside of or beyond insurance coverages).

This next idea is: Further segregate your assets into separate baskets.

  • If you have a manufacturing or service corporation, would it make sense that separate “divisions” of your company have entirely separate corporate forms, so that a catastrophic liability in one operation does not sink the entire ship that you have invested your entire career to build.
  • And more commonly, for real estate developers and investors with multiple properties, does it make sense to either make a new LLC for each individual large project, or — if you have many small investment properties — to form separate LLCs to hold and operate smaller baskets of those assets?  Many times it does.
  • And certainly for both asset protection purposes and tax purposes, it typically is wise to separate the ownership of an building occupied by the operating company, from the operating company itself.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking a big payday under their lawsuit will still try to avoid these various corporate forms, by piercing the veil of one to seek the personal assets of the company owners (which would include the LLC ownership interest in multiple LLCs), but that step of piercing the veil is extremely difficult.  Segregating separate real estate assets and operating companies into their own LLC or corporation may help you weather the storm of that “out-of-the-blue” unexpected occurrence, legal or financial.

For help with the corporate structure of your assets, contact any of Isaac Heintz (513.943.6654), Eli Krafte-Jacobs (513.797.2853), Casey Jones (513.943.5673) or Ashley Duckworth (513.797.2864).

 

 

 

When it comes to expanding access to addiction treatment, it’s crucial for providers to understand their legal rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The anti-discrimination provision of these laws prohibit zoning decisions by local governments that discriminate against drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, the clients of which are “qualified individuals with a disability.”

The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit local governments from:

  • Making zoning or siting decisions that discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
  • Selecting facility locations in ways that exclude, deny benefits to, or otherwise discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
  • Enforcing ordinances or regulations that treat treatment centers differently from other healthcare facilities.

Additionally, a city’s refusal to provide reasonable accommodations—such as a variance or zoning modification that allows a treatment facility to operate—is also discriminatory under federal law.

How this pairs with outreach:

As explained in Rebecca Simpson’s recent blog post, early outreach to elected and community leaders can clear up misconceptions and build allies. Additionally, by explaining these legal principles in plain language to council members, community development staff, and law directors, providers can help ensure that local officials fully understand their legal obligations – creating a foundation for cooperative, well-informed decision-making.

If a dispute still arises, providers can move from engagement to assertive advocacy—using their knowledge of the law and, when necessary, the courts to protect their rights while keeping the focus on timely access to care.

Rebecca Simpson is an attorney and seasoned government and public affairs strategist at Finney Law Firm. If you need support with community engagement, coalition building, or advocacy at the state or local level, you can reach her at [email protected].

When opening or expanding addiction treatment facilities, providers often face fierce NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) opposition. While these concerns are common, they are not insurmountable. With the right strategy, providers can turn opposition into opportunity by building strong community relationships and showcasing the benefits of treatment access.

  1. Engage Early and Often
    The key to overcoming NIMBY opposition is to engage local leaders and community members early. Meet with local officials, and listen to concerns before applying for permits. Early engagement fosters trust and helps identify allies.
  2. Craft a Community-Focused Narrative
    Frame your facility as a community benefit. Highlight how treatment centers reduce crime, alleviate strain on hospitals, and provide jobs. Share success stories from other communities where these benefits became reality.
  3. Partner with Local Organizations
    Form alliances with local nonprofits, faith groups, or businesses. Partnerships show that you’re invested in the community’s wellbeing and not just a company seeking profit.
  4. Demonstrate Tangible Benefits
    Outline how your facility will bring jobs, improve public safety, and offer resources to families. Data and case studies can turn skeptics into supporters.

Building Trust Before You Need It

These strategies aren’t just for treatment providers—they’re valuable for any organization entering a new community. Thoughtful outreach allows you to create allies before you need them, and ensures that local leaders and decision-makers have accurate information about your company’s benefits before NIMBY voices can spread misinformation. It also gives them a direct point of contact when questions arise, fostering transparency and partnership rather than tension.

When Legal Strategy Becomes Essential

Even with proactive engagement, some projects will still face local zoning or permitting challenges. In those cases, there are important legal tools that can help. Drug treatment centers are afforded protections under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibit discriminatory zoning practices. When a well-planned outreach effort is paired with a strategic legal approach, providers can often resolve opposition and move projects forward while preserving community trust.

Overcoming NIMBY opposition requires planning, empathy, and expertise. The most successful outcomes come from pairing thoughtful community outreach with a clear understanding of the legal framework that protects access to care. If you need support navigating these challenges, expert guidance can make all the difference.

Rebecca Simpson is an attorney and seasoned government and public affairs strategist at Finney Law Firm. If you need support with community engagement, coalition building, or advocacy at the state or local level, you can reach her at [email protected].