Note: After this article was published, McMurray’s attorney, Victor Sapphire, of counsel at Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg in Los Angeles, issued this statement: "Mr. McMurray is a prominent attorney. He has decades of demonstrated excellence before the bar. The injunction is grossly overbroad and unlawful and it prohibits our client from stating he was a partner and owner of the L.A. office. It could be interpreted as seeking to prevent him from referring to truthful facts on his resume."

A federal judge has ordered the former managing partner of The Cochran Firm’s office in Los Angeles to stop using the Cochran name in advertising his legal services.

U.S. District Judge James Otero in Los Angeles on February 26 granted a preliminary injunction against Randy McMurray, who managed The Cochran Firm Los Angeles from 2007 to 2012. Since then, according to the firm, McMurray has been advertising his legal services under the name The Cochran Law Group.

By March 29, McMurray must stop using the word "Cochran" in advertising his legal services; on letterhead, business cards or press releases; and in any email address, domain name or social media site, Otero wrote.

"What he’s done by effectively ruling in our favor in the preliminary injunction is determined [that] there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim," said Richard Wirtz of Wirtz Law in San Diego, who represents The Cochran Firm. "The only thing he’s allowed to do under the preliminary injunction is to state to people that he worked at The Cochran Firm."

McMurray’s attorney, Victor Sapphire, of counsel at Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg in Los Angeles, did not return a call for comment.

The Cochran Firm, whose primary office is in Dothan, Ala., was founded in 1998 by the late Johnnie Cochran Jr., who famously won acquittal for O.J. Simpson in his 1994 double-murder trial. Cochran died in 2005 after being diagnosed with brain cancer. The firm now advertises a Los Angeles office with seven attorneys.

According to Otero’s order, Cochran obtained a trademark in 2005 for his name from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The firm later obtained the trademark from Cochran’s estate.

McMurray, who joined the firm in 2000 when it was called Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith & Steward, agreed that his office would provide compensation to the firm in exchange for administrative, marketing and technical support services and use of the Cochran name. With the approval of The Cochran Firm, he formed The Cochran Firm Los Angeles in 2007 with partners Brian Dunn and Joseph Barrett. But, according to the firm, a formal partnership and licensing agreement was never finalized and, by late 2011, The Cochran Firm and McMurray were at odds.

On February 6, 2012, the firm sent McMurray a cease-and-desist notice informing him that he was not to use the Cochran trademark.

On March 5, 2012, McMurray sued Dunn and Barrett, maintaining that he had the right to dissolve The Cochran Firm Los Angeles. He also accused Dunn and others in the Los Angeles office of locking him out and preventing him from accessing his computer or client files. He has demanded $2 million in reimbursement for loans, credit card debt and office rent.

As a result of that case, the office in Los Angeles and everything in it fell under the control of a receiver.

The Cochran Firm filed its trademark suit on July 6, 2012.

On January 16, The Cochran Firm moved for a preliminary injunction, alleging that McMurray had never intended to sign the partnership and licensing agreement and had planned all along to use the Cochran name for his own benefit.

"McMurray never intended to execute a formal agreement with Plaintiff," Wirtz wrote. "What he did intend was to deceive the people of Los Angeles and surrounding areas into believing that McMurray’s law firm was still Plaintiff’s local Los Angeles office."

In fact, on November 8, 2012, McMurray issued a press release on behalf of The Cochran Firm Los Angeles. He had continued to advertise his legal services on www.cochranlaw.org and as The Cochran Law Group.

The State Bar of California lists McMurray as an attorney at The Cochran Law Group in Los Angeles.

The firm, Wirtz wrote in the motion, has spent $38 million in marketing the Cochran name.

"McMurray," Wirtz wrote, "has demonstrated his devious and unethical nature through his attempts to usurp The Cochran Firm mark from its rightful owner through, among other means, fraud."

He added: "McMurray’s use of the Cochran name falsely implies an association with the late Johnnie Cochran and Plaintiff, the firm Mr. Cochran founded. McMurray has no such association."

In McMurray’s objection, filed on January 29, Sapphire wrote that the motion and trademark suit were designed "solely to harass McMurray, force him to abandon his claims against Dunn, and walk away from everything he has built for past 13 years." He noted that his client has had no control over The Cochran Firm Los Angeles for the past year.

He accused the firm of obtaining the trademark through fraud by insisting it was a single partnership when, in fact, it operates as multiple firms through licensing and operating agreements. He also wrote that Cochran, who was suffering from brain cancer at the time and couldn’t use his right hand, lacked the capacity to sign a declaration indicating he planned to transfer the trademark to the firm and that the signature is a forgery. He pointed to an email from Cochran’s wife, Dale Cochran, in which she suggests that she’ll sign the declaration for his husband.

Otero, in his order, disagreed that The Cochran Firm had committed fraud, finding that its operations complied with the American Bar Association’s model rules regarding a single law firm. As for the forgery claims, Otero wrote: "The Court gives little weight to the statements of McMurray, given his obvious self-interest in these proceedings. Plaintiff, by contrast, has submitted declarations from numerous third parties, including Cochran’s wife, Cochran’s physician, and Cochran’s attorneys at the time of the registration, all of whom state that the signature in question is Cochran’s and that he had the mental capacity to understand the significance of his actions."

He also denied claims that McMurray had absolute authority to use the trademark. The Cochran Firm maintains that McMurray was never a "true partner" at the firm, noting that he was not part of a 1999 agreement forming the current firm or any meetings or discussions about profits or expenses. McMurray disagreed about his status, claiming he was made partner in 2003.

Otero disagreed. "Rather, the evidence before the Court indicates only that McMurray was involved in the management of the Los Angeles office of Plaintiff and that he was given the title ‘Partner’ at one time," he wrote. "This is insufficient for a finding that he was a partner entitled to use Cochran’s name."

In other rulings in the case, Otero has dismissed several of The Cochran Firm’s claims related to unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty but has refused to dismiss fraud claims.

On February 14, McMurray filed counterclaims against The Cochran Firm, Dunn, Barrett and senior partners Samuel Cherry, J. Keith Givens and Barvie Koplow, the firm’s chief financial officer, accusing them of running a corrupt enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. He specifically alleged that they illegally advertised McMurray as managing partner of the Los Angeles office when, in fact, they never considered him a partner at the firm. He continued to assert that the Cochran trademark was obtained through fraud and a forged signature and is seeking to cancel the trademark. His other counterclaims include fraud, false advertising and violations of his right to publicity.

"The RICO claim appears to be completely and utterly without merit," Wirtz said.

Contact Amanda Bronstad at [email protected].