On Wednesday, July 30, 2025, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility recommended a 90-day suspension for attorneys Mathew B. Tully and Gregory T. Rinckey, equity partners of Tully Rinckey PLLC, following findings of multiple violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. The recommendation stems from their management practices at the firm’s D.C. office.
The Board’s findings, based on a report from an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee, concluded that Tully and Rinckey violated Rules 5.6(a), 8.4(a), 5.3(b), 5.1(b), 5.1(c)(1), 5.1(c)(2), and 8.4(d). These violations relate to restrictive provisions in the firm’s employment and separation agreements, oversight practices, and actions taken against departing attorneys. The Hearing Committee’s findings, supported by substantial evidence, detailed the firm’s operations and the environment created by Tully and Rinckey’s management.
Tully and Rinckey, who founded Tully Rinckey PLLC in Albany, New York, around 2004-2005, opened the firm’s D.C. office in 2008. As the firm’s only equity partners, they maintained strict control over the D.C. office, including through video surveillance and monitoring of attorneys’ computer use. The Board found that the firm’s employment agreements required departing attorneys to pay significant liquidated damages for early termination, contacting firm clients post-departure, or working with former firm employees. Some agreements also mandated payment of the firm’s legal fees in disputes, regardless of the outcome, and restricted access to client contact information.
The report highlighted specific instances involving attorneys such as Debra D’Agostino and Eric Montalvo, who faced restrictive conditions upon leaving the firm. For example, Tully Rinckey sought referral fees from Montalvo for clients who followed him to his new firm and threatened legal action against departing attorneys. The firm’s practices led to arbitration cases, including one where an arbitrator ruled against the firm’s liquidated damages claim in 2014, citing violations of professional conduct rules.
Following the issuance of D.C. Legal Ethics Opinion 368 in 2015, which clarified that such restrictive provisions violated Rule 5.6(a), Tully and Rinckey modified some agreement terms but continued using others until 2019 or 2020. The Board determined that the D.C. Rules applied to the conduct, as the predominant effect of the violations occurred in the District of Columbia, where the firm’s D.C. office was located and where the affected attorneys worked.
Tully and Rinckey contested the Hearing Committee’s findings, arguing that D.C. law was incorrectly applied, that Rule 5.6(a) was vague, and that suspension was unwarranted. They also claimed that the agreements’ savings clauses should exempt them from violations. The Board rejected these arguments, affirming the Hearing Committee’s conclusions and denying motions to dismiss the charges.
The Board’s recommendation for a 90-day suspension for both attorneys will be forwarded to the D.C. Court of Appeals for a final decision.
The respondents were admitted to the D.C. Bar, with Mr. Tully being admitted in 2005 and Mr. Rinckey in 2008, according to the filing.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
