Ohio Legal Malpractice Lawyers

Ohio Supreme Court Rule On Legal Malpractice Appeal

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO - SMITH, APPELLEE, v. CONLEY, APPELLANT. Smith filed a complaint against Conley on September 5, 2003, alleging that Conley’s legal malpractice had resulted in Smith’s conviction. Conley filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the complaint had not been filed within the one-year limitations period set forth in R.C. 2305.11. The trial court found that for the purposes of R.C. 2305.11, Smith’s cause of action had accrued no later than September 3, 2002 (when Smith filed his pro se motion for a new trial) and that Smith’s complaint was untimely. Upon Smith’s appeal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until September 6, 2002, when Conley filed his motion to withdraw. We accepted Conley’s discretionary appeal.

The majority considers the local court rule to be merely “administrative in nature – designed to facilitate case management.” This, in effect, trivializes the significance of local rules. Local rules are a valid exercise of a court’s rule-making power. Vorisek v. N. Randall (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 62, 63, 18 O.O.3d 296, 413 N.E.2d 793. A judge has discretion to order sanctions, including dismissal, for a party’s violation of a local rule. Id. at 65, 18 O.O.3d 296, 413 N.E.2d 793 (dismissing an appeal for failure to file a civil-appeal statement in compliance with local rule). See, also, Eddie v. Veterinary Sys., Inc. (Feb. 25, 1994), Trumbull App. No. 93-T-4886, 1994 WL 110911 (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with local rules to perfect appeal of arbitration award); Richardson Bros., Inc. v. Dave’s Towing Serv. (1983), 14 Ohio App.3d 1, 14 OBR 3, 469 N.E.2d 850 (affirming trial court’s dismissal for failure to file affidavit pursuant to local rule to perfect appeal); Meyers v. First Natl. Bank of Cincinnati (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 209, 3 OBR 238, 444 N.E.2d 412 (refusing to set aside dismissal granted when opposing party did not file memorandum contra motion to dismiss pursuant to municipal court rule). It is inconsistent to allow sanctions, even dismissal, for some rule violations while disregarding other rule infractions, concluding that the rule is merely “administrative in nature.”

In addition, I believe that this opinion will create difficulty and confusion for trial court judges. If the termination of an attorney-client relationship is no longer dictated by the applicable local court rule, then the judge may be faced with the situation in which an attorney remains counsel of record in a case, yet the attorney-client relationship is considered terminated for malpractice purposes.

Contact Ohio Legal Malpractice Attorneys

Contact a Legal Malpractice Lawyer now for a free case review.