Buehner v. Cheselka

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 2687

Syllabus

Legal malpractice attorney-client relationship fee-agreement duty breach damages statute of limitation. Trial court properly granted summary judgment on appellee's legal malpractice claims where evidence showed that an attorney-client relationship existed, and appellant was contractually duty bound to represent appellee through all phases of the case. Appellant's conduct in representing appellee fell below the standard of care, where he failed to communicate to appellee that the trial court had rendered an unfavorable ruling regarding the motion for new trial and the necessity of appealing the decision. Appellee had to engage additional counsel to perform the services that appellant was obligated to perform. As a result of appellant's breach, appellee incurred significant legal fees and other costs. Appellee established that an attorney-client relationship existed, which gave rise to a duty, and that appellant breached the duty of care, which proximately caused appellee's damages. We also find that appellee's legal malpractice action was not barred by the statute of limitations because it was commenced within one-year from the time appellant was terminated.